i 


BAP 

copvT 


^ 

^ 

i 

1 

.^ 

.5 

! 

,^ 

IE 
3 

/ 

^ 

,»^^ 

IE 

£Z              "^ 

Q. 

■    i 

Xi«r 

; 

'S,       S 

o 

^ 

$ 

^    s 

a; 

c 

c*            O 

bfl 

r\ 

•25            ^ 

|Zi 

E 

.to 

<•>                M 

lO 

"ivi 

^              W 

CO 

> 

2 

^ 

Ck 

^ 

^ 

t 

s 

^ 

^ 

CL 

1^ 

L J 

/  0  ^>  f 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliiverbrg/details/tlireereasonswliyiOOpe 


THREE  REASONS, 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST. 


BT 


REV.  J.  M.  PENDLETON, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  BOWTJNGi-GRJELEN,  KT. 


TWELFTH    THOUSAND, 


CINCINNATI: 
MOOEE,   ANDERSON"   &    COMPANY, 

28   "WEST   FOURTH   STREET. 

1  8  53. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by 

MOORE,  ANDERSON  &  COMPANY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of  Ohio. 


MORQAIT  &  OVEREND, 
PRINTERS. 


CINCINNATI: 

0.   A.  MORGAN  &  CO.,  STKRE0TYPER8, 

HAMMOIID     ETREET. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


If  any  one  wislies  to  know  why  the  following  pages  are 
given  to  the  public,  the  reason  is  easily  furnished.  The 
Author  was  invited,  some  months  since,  to  preach  a  Discourse 
at  the  Dedication  of  a  Baptist  Meeting-House.  He  complied 
with  the  invitation,  and  deemed  the  occasion  suitable  for 
giving  some  of  his  reasons  for  being  a  Baptist.  Many  breth- 
ren have  expressed  a  desire  that  these  Reasons  should  be 
published,  giving  it  as  their  opinion,  that  the  publication 
would  promote  scriptural  views  of  Baptism  and  Church 
Government.  In  deference  to  the  wishes  of  those  valued 
brethren,  the  Discourse  has  been  expanded  into  the  following 
Treatise,  and  is  now  submitted  to  the  public.  That  the  day 
may  soon  come  when  there  shall  be,  as  in  apostolic  times, 
"  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism,"  and  one  form  of  Church 
Government,  is  the  Author's  fervent  prayer. 

J.  M.  Pendleton. 

Bowling-Green,  Kt.,  May  4,  1853. 

(iii) 


:% 


^^ 


THREE   REASONS 

WHY     I     AM     A     BAP  TIS'f . 


Were  I  to  state  that  I  am  a  Baptist  because  Bap- 
tists believe  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and 
cordially  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
grace — ^justification  by  faith — regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  all  kindred  topics — some  other  per- 
son might  say,  *'I  belong  to  a  diflferent  religious 
communion  for  the  same  reasons."  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  that  my  reasons  embrace  the  distinctive 
peculiarities  of  Baptists.  In  other  words,  I  must 
show  why  Baptists  differ  from  other  religious  de- 
nominations. 

1 0771  a  Baptist  then, 

I.  Because  Baptists  regard  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants AS  UNSCRIPTURAL,  AND  INSIST  ON  THE  BAPTISM 
OF  BELIEVERS  IN  ChRIST AND  OF  BELIEVERS  ALONE. 

In  showing  the  validity  of  this  reason,  I  must  en- 
ter into  an  investigation  of  the  subject  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism.    The  investigation  will,  I  trust,  not  be  wanting 

(5) 


6  THREE    REASONS, 

in  impartiality  and  courtesy.  May  it  result  in  the  de- 
velopment and  maintenance  of  truth  ! 

My  position  is  that  there  is  no  Scriptural  authority 
for  infant  baptism.  Neither  precept  for,  nor  example 
of  it  can  be  found  in  the  Sacred  Writings.  In  estab- 
lishing this  position  I  shall,  in  opposition  to  the  re- 
quirements of  logic,  assume  the  burden  of  proof  and 
attempt  to  perform  a  work  of  supererogation.  That 
is  to  say,  I  shall  endeavor  to  prove  a  negative. 

Baptism  is  a  New  Testament  ordinance.  This  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  concedes.  The 
New  Testament,  therefore,  should  settle  every  ques- 
tion relative  to  baptism.  This  is  the  universal  opin- 
ion of  Baptists.  Pedobaptists,  hoAvever,  are  not  wil- 
ling— as  we  shall  see — to  make  an  exclusive  appeal 
to  the  New  Testament  in  determining  who  are  proper 
subjects  of  baptism.     More  of  this  in  another  place. 

My  object  at  present  is  to  show  that  there  is  no 
authority  in  the  New  Testament  for  infant  baptism. 
Let  us  see.     *'To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." 

1.  The  account  given  of  JolirCs  haptism  affords  no 
justification  of  infant  baptism. 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew  it  is  thus  written : 
''In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in 
the  wilderness  of  Judea,  and  saying,  Repent  jo,;  for 

the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand Then  went  out 

to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in 
Jordan,   confessing  their  sins.      But  when   he   sa\y 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  7 

many  of  the  Pliarisees  and  Sadducees  come  to  liis 
baptism,  he  said  unto  them  :  0  generation  of  vipers, 
who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come? 
Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance  :  And 
think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  We  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  father :  for  I  say  unto  you  that  God  is 
able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  to  Abraham." 

From  these  verses  we  learn  that  John  preached  re- 
pentance— that  those  whom  he  baptized  confessed 
their  sins — and  that  descent  from  Abraham  was  not 
considered  a  qualification  for  baptism.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  narrative  that  can  suggest  the  idea  of 
the  baptism  of  impenitent  adults  or  unconscious  in- 
fants. And  this  is  equally  true  of  the  account  of  the 
Harbinger's  ministry  given  by  the  other  three  evan- 
gelists. 

Paul,' in  explaining  John's  baptism,  says,  ''John 
verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  say- 
ing unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
who  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ 
Jesus."  Acts,  xix.  4.  Here  it  is  plain  that  John  re- 
quired repentance  and  faith  in  the  Messiah  in  those 
*he  baptized.  There  is  not  the  remotest  allusion  to 
the  baptism  of  any  who  either  did  not  or  could  not 
repent  and  beheve  in  Christ.  Baptists,  so  far  as  the 
subjects  of  baptism  are  concerned,  certainly  copy  the 
example  of  the  first  Baptist. 

2.  The  disciples  of  Christ  baptized  no  infants  during 
his  ministry. 


8  TRREE    REASONS. 

The  only  reference  we  have  to  the  baptisms  admin- 
istered by  them  before  the  Redeemer's  death  and 
resurrection  is  in  John  iii,  26,  and  iv,  1,  2.  It 
might  be  inferred  from  the  third  chapter  that  Jesus 
himself  baptized,  but  the  first  two  verses  of  the 
fourth  chapter  explain  the  matter  as  follows :  "  When 
therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees  had 
heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples 
tJian  John,  though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but 
his  disciples,"  &c. 

Baptism  was  not  administered  by  the  Savior,  but 
as  his  apostles  acted  under  his  authority,  he  is 
represented  as  doing  what  was  done  by  his  direc- 
tion. The  fact,  however,  which  deserves  special 
attention  is  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  dis- 
ciples than  John.  There  is  a  distinction  between 
making  and  baptizing  disciples.  First  in  order  was 
the  process  of  discipleship  to  Christ,  and  then  bap- 
tism as  a  recognition  of  discipleship.  Could  infants 
be  made  disciples?  Manifestly  not.  Then,  accord- 
ing to  this  passage,  they  were  not  eligible  to  baptism  ; 
for  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  none  were  bap- 
tized who  were  not  first  made  disciples. 

The  portions  of  Scripture  quoted,  taken  together, 
may  be  considered  fair  exponents  of  the  baptismal 
practice  from  the  beginning  of  John's  ministry  to  the 
death  of  Christ.  I  do  not  ask  whether  infant  bap- 
tism is  named ;  is  it  even  indirectly  alluded  to  ?  Let 
the  candid  reader  answer. 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  9 

3.  The  oft-repeated  verse,  "  Suffer  little  cJiildreny 
and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me  :  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven" — does  not  justify  infant  bap- 
tism. 

For  what  purpose  were  these  children  taken  to 
Christ?  That  he  should  baptize  them?  Evidently 
not;  for  he  did  not  baptize.  Were  they  carried  to 
him  that  his  disciples  might  baptize  them  ?  If  so, 
it  is  marvelous  that  the  disciples  rebuked  those  who 
had  charge  of  them.  The  preceding  verse  shows 
why  these  children  were  taken  to  Christ.  ''Then 
were  there  brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he 
should  put  his  hands  on  them,  and  prcty  :  and  the  dis- 
ciples rebuked  them."  Matt.  xix.  13.  There  was  a 
specific  object  in  view.  It  was  not  that  tlie  "little 
children"  might  be  baptized,  but  that  the  Savior 
might  put  his  hands  on  them  and  pray.  Who  has 
the  right  to  infer  that  these  children  were  baptized 
or  that  baptism  was  named  in  their  presence  ?  It  is 
often  argued  that  the  phrase,  "of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  indicates  that  those  children  were 
"members  of  the  visible  church."  This  does  not 
follow.  The  Savior  does  not  say  that  these  children 
were  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  but  he  says,  "o/" 
such  is  the  kinq-dom  of  heaven."  The  idea  of  re- 
semblance  is  clearly  presented.  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  in 
his  notes  on  the  passage,  says,  "  Of  such  as  these — 
that  is,  of  persons  with  such  tempers  as  these — is 
the  church  to  be  composed.      He  does  not  say  of 


10  THREE    REASONS, 

those  infants,  but  of  such  persons  as  resembled  them, 
or  were  like  them  in  tempei",  was  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  made  up.  It  w-as  proper,  therefore,  that  he 
should  pray  for  them."  Mr.  Barnes  is  good  Presby- 
terian authority,  and  is  higlily  celebrated  as  an  ex- 
positor of  Scripture.  In  Matthew  xviii,  3,  the  Savior 
says,  ''Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little 
children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Here  we  have  again  the  idea  of  resem- 
blance between  little  children  and  converted  persons, 
but  there  is  not  a  word  concerning  infant  baptism. 
May  I  not  say  that  the  New  Testament,  from  the 
birth  of  John  the  Baptist  to  the  death  of  Christ,  is  as 
silent  as  the  grave  in  reference  to  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants ?  However,  if  Pedobaptists  were  to  admit  this, 
they  would  still  insist,  many  of  them  at  least,  that 
there  is  authority  for  their  practice  bearing  date  sub- 
sequent to  the  Redeemer's  death  and  resurrection. 
Let  us  see  whether  there  is  such  authority. 

4.  The  commission  given  hy  the  Savior  to  his  aj)ostles 
just  before  his  ascension  to  heaven,  furnishes  no  plea 
for  infant  bai^tism. 

Tlie  circumstances  connected  with  the  giving  of 
this  commission  were  replete  with  interest.  The 
Savior  had  finished  the  work  which  he  came  down 
from  heaven  to  accomplish.  He  had  offered  himself 
a  sacrifice  for  sin.  He  had  exhausted  the  cup  of 
atoning  sorrow.  He  had  lain  in  the  dark  mansions 
of  the  grave.     He  had  risen  in  triumph  from  the 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  11 

dead,  and  Avas  about  to  ascend  to  the  right  hand  of 
the  Majesty  on  high.  Invested  with  perfect  media- 
torial authority,  he  said  to  his  apostles:  "All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye 
therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo,  I  am  with 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen.'* 
Matthew,  xxviii,  18,  19,  20.  Mark  records  the  same 
commission  thus:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Mark,  xvi,  15,  16. 
Luke  represents  the  Savior  as  saying,  "Thus  it  is 
written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to 
rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day ;  and  that  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his 
name  amonof  all  nations,  beo^innins:  at  Jerusalem,'* 
Luke,  xxiv,  46,  47. 

Surely  the  language  of  this  commission  is  plain. 
Matthew  informs  us  that  teaching,  or  making  disciples 
(for  the  verb  matheteuo  means  make  disciples)  is  to 
precede  baptism — Mark  establishes  the  priority  of 
faith  to  baptism,  and  Luke  connects  repentance  and 
remission  of  sjns  with  the  execution  of  the  commis- 
sion. No  man  can,  in  obedience  to  this  commission, 
baptize  an  unbeliever  or  an  infant.  The  unbeliever 
is  not  a  penitent  disciple,   and  it   is  obviously   im- 


12  THREE  REASONS, 

possible    for   the   infant  to  repent    and    believe   the 
gospel. 

I  lay  it  down  as  a  principle  of  common  sense, 
which  commends  itself  to  every  unprejudiced  mind, 
that  a  commission  to  do  a  thing  or  things  authorizes 
only  the  doing  of  that  thing  or  those  things  specified  in 
it.  The  doing  of  all  other  things  is  virtually  pro- 
hibited. There  is  a  maxim  of  law — Exjpressio  unius 
est  exclusio  alterius.^  It  must  necessarily  be  so;  for 
otherwise  there  could  be  no  definiteness  in  contracts 
between  men,  and  no  precision  in  "the  enactments  of 
legislative  bodies,  or  in  the  decrees  of  courts  of  jus- 
tice. This  maxim  might  be  illustrated  in  a  thousand 
ways.  Numerous  Scriptural  illustrations  are  at  hand. 
I  will  mention  a  few:  God  commanded  Noah  to 
make  an  ark  of  gopher-ioood.  He  assigns  no  reason 
why  gopher-wood  should  be  used.  The  command, 
however,  is  positive  and  it  forbids  the  use  of  every 
other  kind  of  wood.  Abraham  was  commanded  to 
offer  his  son  Isaac  for  a  burnt-offering.  He  was  virtu- 
ally forbidden  to  offer  any  other  member  of  his  family. 
Ay  more,  he  could  not  offer  an  animal  till  the 
original  order  was  revoked  by  him  who  gave  it,  and 
a  second  order  was  given,  requiring  the  sacrifice  of  a 
ram  in  the  place  of  Isaac.  The  institution  of  the 
passover  furnishes  a  striking  illustration,  or  rather  a 
combination  of   illustrations.      A   lamb  was   to   be 

*The  expression  of  one  thing  is  the  exclusion  of  another 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  13 

killed — not  a  heifer — it  was  to  be  of  tlie  first  year — 
not  of  the  second  or  third — a  male — not  a  female — 
without  blemish — not  with  blemish  —  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  month — not  on  some  otheT  day — 
the  blood  was  to  be  apphed  to  the  door-posts  and  lin- 
tels— not  elsewhere,  (fee.  The  constitution  of  the 
State  of  Kentucky  supplies  many  illustrations.  I 
avail  myself  of  but  one.  It  is  provided  that  Judges 
(appellate  and  circuit)  shall  be  removed  from  office 
by  the  Governor  "on  the  address  of  two-thirds  of 
each  house  of  the  General  Assembly,"  and  pro- 
vision is  also  made  for  their  removal  by  impeach- 
ment. These  are  the  two  metliods  of  removal  known 
to  the  constitution.  I  ask  if  all  other  methods  of  re- 
moval are  not  virtually  prohibited  ?  Let  every  man 
divest  himself  of  prejudice  and  answer. 

In  application  of  the  principle  I  have  laid  down, 
and  of  the  law-maxim  I  have  illustrated,  I  affirm 
that  the  commission  of  Christ  to  the  apostles  in  re- 
quiring them  to  baptize  disciples,  believers,  prohibits 
in  effect  the  baptism  of  all  others.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  we  are  not  forbidden  in  so  many  words  to  bap- 
tize infants.  The  same  may  be  said  of  unbelievers ; 
ay,  of  horses,  and  cattle,^  and  bells. 

Rev.  F.  G.  Hibbard,  a  Methodist  minister  "of  the 
Genessee  conference,"  in  his  work  on  "Christian 
Baptism,"  comments  with  some  severity  on  an  ex- 
tract he  makes  from  "  Jewett  on  Baptism."  Jewett, 
in  illustrating  the   view  of  the  commission  already 


14  THREE    REASONS, 

presented  says,  "If  I  commission  my  agent  to  pur- 
chase for  me  a  lot  of  Webster's  large  dictionaries, 
does  he  not  violate  his  instructions,  if  he  also  buy  on 
my  account  a  lot  of  the  abridgments  ?  But  he  says, 
'You  did  not  forbid  the  purchase  of  the  abridg- 
ments.' Did  not  forbid  the  purchase  !  I  answer,  it 
was  not  necessary  for  me  to  insert  in  your  commis- 
sion a  prohibition  against  purchasing  other  books. 
Your  instructions  were  definite ;  and  when  I  directed 
you  to  buy  the  large  books,  you  must  have  known 
that  you  had  no  authority  to  buy  5ma7/  books;  you 
have  done  it  at  your  own  risk." 

Mr.  Hibbard  says,  ''All  this  shows  just  how  far 
some  authors  look  into  a  subject  before  they  pro- 
nounce upon  it.  The  analogy,  however  an  iinprac- 
ticed  reader  may  be  influened  by  it,  is  an  unfair  and 
perfectl}'-  puerile  statement  of  the  case.  For  in  the 
first  place,  Pedobaptists  do  not  take  their  authority 
for  baptizing  infants  from  the  mere  absence  of  a  ^^ro- 
hibition  of  such  a  practice,  as  the  pretended  analogy 
teaches.  We  know  not,  indeed,  how  a  Christian  au- 
thor could  make  such  a  representation  of  the  opin- 
ions of  his  brethren.  All  we  affirm  touching  this 
point  is,  that  the  total  absence  of  a,  prohibition,  in  this 
particular  commission,  does  not  2^rove  a  universal 
prohibition ;  it  proves  nothing  at  all,  either  j^ro  or 
con.  And  yet  our  author  attempts  to  prove  that  the 
absence  of  an  express  prohibition,  in  this  specific 
case,  does  directly  prove  a  general  prohibition.     Fur- 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  15 

therm  ore,  the  analogy  is  without  any  just  force  what- 
ever, because,  although  a  command  to  buy  large 
books,  is  no  authority  for  the  purchase  of  small 
books  ;  and  a  command  to  baptize  believers  is  no  au- 
thority for  baptizing  infants,  yet  as  such  commands 
contain  no  prohibition,  there  may  exist  circum- 
stances, or  there  may,  in  another  way,  be  instruc- 
tions communicated,  to  authorize  the  purchase  of 
the  small  books,  alias  the  baptism  of  infants ;  and 
this  may  be  such  a  perfect  matter  of  understanding 
between  the  master  and  the  'agent,'  as  to  render  it 
wholly  unnecessary  to  specify  it.  And  this,  we 
maintain,  is  the  exact  state  of  the  case  in  relation  to 
infant  baptism."     Pp.  235,  236. 

Mr.  Hibbard  has  been  pronounced  by  a  dis- 
tinguished Baptist  minister,  "the  Carson  of  his  de- 
nomination on  the  subjects  and  mode  of  Baptism.'* 
This  is  high  eulogy  ;  for  Baptists  consider  Carson's 
work  on  Baptism  the  ablest  which  the  baptismal  con- 
troversy has  elicited.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  dispar- 
age Mr.  H.'s  book.  It  displays  more  abihty  and 
scholarship  than  any  Methodist  work  I  have  read. 
With  a  disposition,  therefore,  to  do  him  perfect  justice, 
I  solicit  the  reader's  attention  to  the  concession  made 
in  the  foregoing  extract.  A  more  comprehensive  con- 
cession could  not  be  expected  from  a  Pedobaptist.  It 
is  conceded  that  "a  command  to  baptize  helievers  is  no 
authority  for  baptizing  infants.''     Very  well.     This 


16  THREE  REASONS, 

is  tlie  position  Baptisls  liave  ever  maintained.  The 
commission  of  Christ  to  his  apostles  requires  the 
baptism  of  behevers:  therefore  it  does  not,  Mr.  H. 
being-  judge,  authorize  the  baptism  of  infants.  It 
may  be  more  satisfactory  to  present  the  argument  in 
syllogistic  form.  Here  it  is  :  A  command  to  baptize 
believers  is  no  authority  for  baptizing  infants :  The 
commission  contains  a  command  to  baptize  believers : 
therefore  the  commission  is  no  authority  for  baptizing 
infants.  If  there  is  a  flaw  in  this  syllogism,  or  if  it 
docs  Mr.  H.'s  concession  the  least  injustice,  I  am  not 
aware  of  it.  I  conclude,  then,  that  Mr.  H.  will  not 
hesitate  to  say,  with  Baptists,  that  the  commission 
does  not  authorize  infant  baptism.  Still  he  insists- 
strenuously  on  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  argues 
that  there  is  authority  for  the  practice,  independent 
of  the  comniissipn.  This  is  strange  indeed.  For  it 
is  plain  fr.OTO'-^he,  consolatory  assurance  subjoined  to 
the  cojii-mission,.  that  the  Lord  Jesus  intended  that  it 
should,  re^inain  in  full  force  to  the  end  of  the  Avorld. 
Here,,  then,  was  a  commission  given  by  Christ,  which 
enjoined  baptism  upon  believers  to  the  close  of 
time: — a  commission  which,  according  to  the  general 
view  of  Pedobaptists,  originated  Christian  baptism — 
a  commission  in  which  there  is  no  reference  to  infants 
at  all — and  yet  infants,  as  Mr.  Hibbard  teaches,  are 
to  be  baptized !  It  is  strange  that  his  philosophical 
mind  did  not  perceive  that  the  perfect  silence  of  the 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  17 

commission,  in  regard  to  infants,  furnishes,  to  say  (he 
least,  strong  prima  facie  evidence  against  the  vahdity 
of  their  claim  to  baptism. 

But,  says  Mr.  H.,  referring  to  Mr.  Jewett's  illus- 
tration, "there  may  exist  circumstances,  or  there 
may,  in  another  way,  be  instructions  communicated, 
to  authorize  the  purchase  of  the  small  books,  alias 
the  baptism  of  infants  ;  and  this  may  be  such  a  per- 
fect matter  of  understanding  between  the  master  and 
the  'agent,'  as  to  render  it  wholly  unnecessary  to 
specify  it.  And  this,  we  maintain,  is  the  exact  state 
of  the  case  in  relation  to  infant  baptism." 

Mr.  Jewett's  commission  to  his  agent  to  buy  Web- 
ster's larffe  dictionaries,  is  intended  to  represent 
Christ's  commission  to  his  apostles  to  baptize  be- 
lievers. Mr.  H.  SRjs,  "a  command  to  buy  lar^e 
books,  is  no  authority  for  the  purchase  of  small 
books;"  but  he  urges  that  authority  to  buy  small 
books  may  be  given  in  another  way.  The  question, 
however,  arises.  Is  it  given?  And  Mr.  J.'s  illustra- 
tion supplies  a  negative  answer.  For  if  the  agent 
had  authority  to  buy  small  dictionaries,  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  principal  should  call  him  to  ac- 
count for  buying  them,  and  require  him  to  sustain 
whatever  loss  might  accrue  from  the  purchase. 
Thus  it  appears  that  while  Mr.  H.  complains  of  the 
unfairness  of  Mr.  J.'s  analogy,  he  overlooks  one  of 
the  most  important  points  in  the  analogy.  The  agent, 
according  to  the  illustration,  could  have  had  no  au- 
2 


(8  THREE  REASONS, 

ijhority  to  buy  small  books,  and  yet  Mr.  H.  will  have 
it  that  the  authority  was  so  well  understood  between 
the  principal  and  agent,  that  it  was  needless  to 
specify  small  books  in  the  commission  of  the  princi- 
pal to  the  agent!  ''And  this,  we  maintain,— says 
he, — is  the  exact  state  of  the  case  in  relation  to  in- 
fant baptism."  That  is  to  say,  the  matter  was  so 
well  understood  betw*een  Christ  and  his  apostles  that 
they  were  to  baptize  infants ;  that  it  was  "  "wholly  un- 
necessary "  for  him  in  the  commission  to  command 
them  to  do  so  !  A  private  understanding,  apart  from 
the  commission,  w^as  it?  If  Mr.  H.'s  view  is  cor- 
rect, it  is  difficult  to  say  why  the  commission  was 
given  at  all.  If  the  apostles  understood  that  they 
were  to  baptize  infants — and  if  that  understanding 
superseded  the  necessity  of  the  mention  of  infants  in 
the  commission  —  surely  their  understanding  that 
they  were  to  baptize  behevers,  disciples,  rendered  it 
needless  for  believers,  disciples,  to  be  named.  More- 
over, the  apostles  had  baptized  the  disciples  Jesus 
made  during  his  ministry — and  they  baptized  no  in- 
fants— to  say  the  least,  it  has  never  been  proved  that 
they  did — if,  therefore,  the  Savior  had  intended  that 
both  believers  and  infants  should  be  baptized,  it  is 
much  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  would  have 
mentioned  infants  than  believers.  The  apostles  had 
witnessed  many  exemplifications  of  believers'  bap- 
tism— of  infant  baptism  they  knew  nothing — and  it 
was  specially  necessary  for  tlie  baptism  of  infants  to 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  19 

be  enjoined  in  the  commission,  if  the  Savior  consid- 
ered them  proper  subjects  of  the  baptismal  jite. 
Why  was  not  their  baptism  enjoined  ?  Why  ?  The 
only  answer  is,  it  was  not  the  will  of  the  author  of 
the  commission. 

From  this  somewhat  extended  examination  of  the 
commission,  I  feel  fully  authorized  to  say  that  it 
furnishes  no  plea  for  infant  baptism.  I  know  it  will 
be  said — for  it  has  been  said  a  thousand  times — that 
if  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized  because  they  can- 
not believe,  they  cannot  be  saved  because  they  can- 
not believe.  If  the  salvation  of  infants  depends  on 
their  faith  they  cannot  be  saved.  They  are  incapa- 
ble of  faith.  They  are  doubtless  saved  through  the 
mediation  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  it  is  not  by  faith.  It 
seems  to  me  that  our  opponents  egregiously  fail  to 
accomplish  their  object  in  urging  this  objection  to  our 
views.  They  must  intend  to  make  us  admit  the  pro- 
priety of  infant  baptism,  or  force  us  to  a  denial  of 
infant  salvation.  But  we  make  neither  the  admis- 
sion nor  the  denial.  As  soon  as  we  say  that  infants 
are  not  saved  by  faith,  but  without  faith,  their  ob- 
jection is  demolished. 

5.  There  is  no  instance  of  infant  baptism  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost. 

This  fact  is  worthy  of  special  consideration.  The 
apostles  were,  on  that  memorable  day,  copiously  im- 
bued with  the  Holy  Spirit — they  were  baptized  in  the 


20  THREE  REASONS, 

Spirit — they  were  endued  witli  power  from  on  liigh. 
All  things  whatsoever  Jesus  had  said  to  them  were 
brought  to  their  remembrance.  They  were  required 
for  the  first  time  to  show  their  understanding  of  the 
commission  of  their  ascended  Lord.  How  did  they 
understand  it?  How  did  they  execute  it?  First, 
the  gospel  was  preached.  The  people  were  pierced 
to  the  heart,  and  said,  **Men  and  brethren,  what  shall 
we  do?"  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  ** Repent, 
and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  thQ  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise 
is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call."  No  one  contends  that  the  command,  "  Re^ 
pent,"  is  applicable  to  infants,  and  it  is  certain  that 
the  injunction,  "Be  baptized,"  has  no  reference  to 
them ;  for  it  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  in  heaven  that  the 
same  persons  are  commanded  to  repent  and  be  bap- 
tized. It  is  supposed  by  some,  however,  that  the 
phrase,  "  The  promise  is  unto  you  and  your  children," 
refers  to  infants.  The  term  children  evidently  means 
posterity,  and  the  promise  cannot  be  divested  of  its 
relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  promise  w\as  not 
only  to  the  Jew^s  and  their  posterity,  but  to  Gen- 
tiles— "to  all  that  are  afar  off!"  This  restriction  is 
laid  upon  the  promise — "even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call."     And  whether  the  term  "call" 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  21 

is  used  in  its  general  sense,  as  in  Proverbs  viii,  4,  or 
in  its  special  sense,  as  in  1  Cor.  i,  24,  it  is  in  either 
case  inapplicable  to  infants. 

Did  any  obey  Peter's  command,  "Be  baptized?" 
It  is  written,  "Then  they  that  gladly  received  his 
word,  were  baptized :  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  The 
baptism  was  limited  to  those  who  gladly  received 
Peter's  word,  and  as  infants  were  obviously  not  of 
that  number,  to  infer  that  they  were  baptized  is  ut- 
terly gratuitous.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Pentecostal 
administration  of  baptism  which  intimates  that  infants 
were  considered  proper  subjects  of  the  ordinance. 

6.  There  is  nothing  like  infant  baptism  in  the  account 
given  of  Philip's  labors  in  Samaria. 

The  reader  can  examine  for  himself  the  eighth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  There  it  will 
be  seen  that  Philip  began  to  execute  the  commission 
of  the  Savior  hj  preaching.  He  "preached  Christ 
unto  them."  He  doubtless  remembered  the  words 
of  the  risen  Redeemer,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  etc.  The 
Samaritans  "believed  Philip  preaching  the  things 
concernino;  the  kino-dom  of  God  and  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ" — and  what  then?  "  They  were  bap- 
tized both  men  and  women." 

Here  was  a  practical  exposition  of  the  commis- 
sion of  Christ.     Is  there  anything  in  this  exposition 


22  THREE    REASONS, 

which  can  suggest  the  idea  of  infant  dedication  to 
God  in  baptism  ?  Surely  not.  Philip's  plan  of  ope- 
ration was  evidently  uniform.  Hence,  when  he  fell 
in  with  the  Ethiopian  eunuch — as  we  learn  from  the 
latter  part  of  the  same  chapter — he  first  ^^ preached 
wnto  him  Jesus.''  The  eunuch  professed /aiV/i  in  the 
Messiah.  Then  Philip  baptized  him.  As  **  faith 
comes  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God," 
there  must  be  preaching  before  faith,  and  there  must 
be  faith  prior  to  baptism,  because  this  is  the  order 
established  by  Christ,  in  the  commission.  Alas  for 
those  who  invert  this  order  ! 

7.  The  household  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament do  not  sustain  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 

I  will  take  them  in  their  order.  In  the  tenth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  there  is  an  ac- 
count of  Peter's  visit  to  Cornelius.  He  preached, 
and  the  Spirit  was  poured  out.  His  Gentile  hearers 
spoke  with  tongues  and  magnified  God.  Then  said 
Peter,  **  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptised,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  well  as  we?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Here  was  a 
household  baptism,  but  there  are  things  said  of  the 
subjects  of  this  baptism  that  could  not  be  true  of 
unconscious  infants.  One  fact,  however,  settles  the 
whole  matter.  In  the  second  verse  of  the  chapter  it 
is  said  that  Cornelius  "  feared  God  with  all  his 
hmse."    Can  infants  fear  God  ? 


WHY   I   AM    A    BAPTIST.  23 

The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household  is  next 
in  order.  The  reader  will  please  read  the  narrative, 
Acts,  xvi,  13,  14,  15.  No  one  denies  that  Lydia 
was  a  believer.  She  was,  therefore,  a  proper  subject 
of  baptism.  But  it  is  inferred  that  as  her  household 
was  baptized,  infants  must  have  been  baptized.  This 
does  not  follow,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  there 
are  many  households  in  which  there  are  no  infants. 
The  probability  is — and  it  amounts  almost  to  a  cer- 
tainty— that  Lydia  had  neither  husband  nor  children. 
She  was  engaged  in  business — was  "a  seller  of  pur- 
ple, of  the  city  of  Thyatira  " — which  was  about 
three  hundred  miles  from  Philippi.  If  she  had  had  a 
husband  and  infant  children,  is  it  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  her  husband  would  have  taken  on  him- 
self the  business  in  which  she  was  engaged,  allowing 
her  to  remain  at  home  with  the  infant  children?  She 
evidently  had  no  busband  with  her ;  for  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  she  violated  conjugal  propriety  so  far 
as  to  reduce  her  husband  to  a  cipher,  by  saying 
'*my  house/*  etc.  Nor  can  we  believe  that  the 
sacred  historian  would  have  spoken  of  the  house  of 
Lydia,  in  verse  forty,  if  she  had  had  a  husband. 
The  most  reasonable  inference  is  that  her  household 
consisted  of  persons  in  her  employ — that  they  be- 
lieved and  were  baptized  as  well  as  Lydia — and  that 
they  were  the  *' brethren"  whom  Paul  and  Silas 
"comforted,"  when  released  from  prison,  they  ** en- 
tered into  the  house  of  Lydia." 


24  TRREE    REASONS, 

I  have  said  enough  to  inralidate  Pedobaptist  ob- 
jections to  the  Baptist  explanation  of  this  narrative, 
and  I  am  required  to  do  nothing  more.  Pedobaptists 
affirm  that  Lydia  had  infant  children.  On  them  then 
devolves  the  burden  of  proof.  They  must  prove  that 
she  had  infant  children.  This  they  never  have 
done — ^this  they  never  can  do.  And  hence  the 
narrative  furnishes  no  argument  which  can  logically 
inure  to  their  benefit. 

The  same  chapter  (Acts,  xvi,)  contains  a  record 
of  the  baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  household. 
Here  it  is  necessary  to  say  but  little ;  for  every  one 
can  see  that  there  were  no  infants  in  the  jailer's 
family.  Paul  and  Silas  '*  spake  unto  him  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  houseJ^  It  is 
also  said  that  the  jailer  ''rejoiced,  beUeving  in  God 
with  all  his  house. ^'  Surely  the  word  of  the  Lord 
was  not  spoken  to  infants — surely  infants  are  in- 
capable of  believing.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this 
record  shows  how  Paul  understood  the  commission 
of  Christ.  It  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  house- 
hold of  Crispus  (Acts,  xviii,  8,)  to  show  what  has 
just  been  shown  ;  namely,  that  a  man's  house  may 
believe  on  the  Lord  as  well  as  himself.  It  is  not 
said  in  so  many  words  that  the  house  of  Crispus 
was  baptized,  but  it  is  said  that  he  "believed  on  the 
Lord  with  all  his  housed* 

In  I'^Cor.'  i,  16,  Paul  says:  **And  I  baptized  also 
iie  household  of  Stephanas/*  etc.      Will  any  one 


WIIV    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  25 

infer  that  there  were  infants  in  this  family  ?  This 
inference  cannot  be  drawn  in  view  of  what  the  same 
apostle  says  in  the  same  epistle,  (xvi,  15):  "Ye 
know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  first 
fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  Infants  could 
not  addict  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints. 
It  follows  that  there  were  no  infants  in  the  family  of 
Stephanas.  I  am  aware  that,  to  invalidate  this  con- 
clusion, a  chronological  argument  has  been  used.  It 
has  been  urged  that  although  infants  were  baptized 
in  the  family  of  Stephanas,  when  Paul  planted  the 
church  at  Corinth,  sufficient  time  elapsed  between 
their  baptism  and  the  date  of  Paul's  first  epistle  to 
the  church,  to  justify  the  declaration — "they  have 
addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints.'* 
This  argument  avails  nothing  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  most  liberal  chronology  allows  only  a  few  years 
to  have  intervened  between  the  planting  of  the 
church  and  the  date  of  the  epistle. 

I  have  now  referred  to  all  the  household  baptisms 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  and  there  is  no 
proof  that  there  was  an  infant  in  any  of  them.  On 
the  other  hand,  facts  and  circumstances  are  related 
which  render -it  a  moral  certainty  that  there  were  no 
infants  in  those  baptized  families.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  ordinarily  there  are  infants  in  households. 
It  must  be  shown  that  it  is  universally  the  case. 
Then  the  household  argument  will  avail  Pedcbap- 
3 


26  THREE    REASONS, 

tists — not  till  then.  But  it  can  never  be  predicated 
of  all  households  that  there  are  infants  in  them. 
Many  a  Baptist  minister,  in  the  United  States,  has 
baptized  more  households  than  are  referred  to  in  the 
New  Testament — and  no  infants  in  them.  It  is  said 
that  thirty  entire  household  baptisms  have  occurred* 
in  connection  with  American  Baptist  Missionary  ope- 
rations among  the  Karens.  In  view  of  facts  like 
these,  how  sophistical  appear  the  reasonings  of  Pe- 
dobaptists,  in  reference  to  the  household  baptisms  of 
the  New  Testament. 

8.  The  allusions  to  baptism  in  the  apostolical  epistles 
forbid  the  supposition  that  infants  ivere  baptized. 

Paul  refers  to  the  '"baptized"  as  "dead  to  sin" — 
as  rising  from  the  baptismal  waters  to  "  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life" — as  "putting  on  Christ" — as  "risen 
with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God" — as  "baptized  for  the  dead,"  or  in  the  belief 
of  the  resurrection — as  making  "a  profession  of 
faith" — a  "profession  before  many  witnesses,"  etc. 
These  phrases  are  utterly  destitute  of  meaning  if 
applied  to  unintelligent  babes. 

Peter  defines  baptism  to  be  the  "answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead."  This  is  a  general  definition. 
And  it  forbids  the  idea  that  baptism  was,  in  apostolic 
times,  administered  to  any  except  accountable  agents. 
What  conscience  has  an  infant  ?  There  is  no  opera- 
tion of  conscience  prior  to  accountability.     Baptism, 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  27 

then,  in  its  administration  to  infants,  cannot  be  what 
Peter  says  it  is.  This  is,  for  Ped^baptists,  an  un- 
fortunate fact — a  fact  significant  of  the  unscriptur- 
ahty  of  their  practice. 

There  is,  in  this  connection,  another  thing- 
worthy  of  consideration.  Paul,  in  his  epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians,  exhorts  children  to  obey 
their  parents,  etc.  It  is  generally  supposed  that 
about  ten  years  intervened  between  the  introduction 
of  the  gospel  into  Ephesus  and  Colosse,  and  the 
writing  of  those  epistles.  Now,  if  those  children,  or 
any  of  them,  had  been  baptized  when  the  gospel  was 
introduced  into  those  cities,  is  it  not  strange  that  the 
apostle,  in  urging  obedience  upon  them,  presented 
no  motive  derived  from  their  **  dedication  to  God  in 
baptism?"  There  is  no  allusion  to  any  "vows, 
promises,  and  obligations,"  made  and  assumed  foi 
them  by  their  parents  or  sponsors  at  their  baptism. 
There  is  nothing  said  analogous  to  the  personal  ac- 
ceptance of  a  draft  drawn  upon  them  in  anticipation 
of  their  intelligence  and  responsibility.  Here  I  pre- 
sent a  query:  Would  a  Pedobaptist  apostle  have 
pursued  this  course?  To  bring  the  matter  nearer 
home !  Would  a  Pedobaptist  Missionary  write  a  let- 
ter to  a  Pedobaptist  church — making  special  men- 
tion of  parents  and  children — urging  both  to  a  faith- 
ful performance  of  relative  duties — and  say  nothing 
of  the  obligations  of  either  parents  or  children,  as 
connected  with,  or  growing  out  of  infant  baptism? 


28  THREE  REASONS, 

I  suppose  no  one  has  sufficient  credulity  to  answer 
the  question  affirmatively.  The  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, therefore,  did  what  we  cannot  reasonably  im- 
agine a  Pedobaptist  missionary  or  minister  to  do  ! 
All  whom  it  concerns  may,  if  they  please,  consider 
this  a  suggestive  fact. 

9.  The  language  of  1  Cor.  vii,  14, — "Else  were 
your  children  unclean,  hut  noio  are  they  holy  " — has  no 
reference  to  infant  baptism. 

'  This  passage   is  often  quoted  with  an  air  of  tri- 
umph,   as   if   it    conclusively   settled    the    question. ' 
There  is  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  baptism.     What 
ire  the  facts  in  the  case  ?     Simply  these  :  The  ques- 

ion  was  agitated  at  Corinth,  whether  believing 
lusbands  and  wives  should  not  separate  themselves 
from  their  unbelieving  partners  ?  The  idea  was  en- 
tertained by  some,  at  least,  that  an  imbeliever  was 
"unclean"  to  a  believer,  even  as  a  Gentile  was, 
under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  "unclean"  to  a 
Jew.  Paul  corrects  this  false  impression,  by  showing 
that  "  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctiiSed  by  the 
wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
husband."  Without  entering  into  a  critical  ex- 
amination of  the  term  "sanctified,"  I  avail  myself 
of  the  fact  that  the  sanctification  was  such  as  to  jus- 
tify the  continuance  of  the  marriage  relation  between 
the  believing  and  the  unbelieving  partner.  "Else " — 
that  is,  if  the  sanctification  did  not  remove  the  sup- 
posed uncleanness  from  unbelieving  parents — "were 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  29 

your  children  unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy." 
The  passage  is  intensely  strong  against  infant  baptism. 
It  shows  that  the  children  of  the  members  of  the  Corin- 
thian church,  sustained  the  same  relation  to  the  church 
that  unbeheving  husbands  and  wives  did,  and  that 
if  believing  husbands  and  wives  abandoned  their  un- 
believing partners,  beheving  parents  might,  with  the 
same  propriety,  separate  themselves  from  their  chil- 
ren.  Perhaps  a  distinguished  Pedobaptist's  exposi- 
tion of  the  passage  may  be  more  satisfactory  than 
mine.  Mr.  Barnes  says:  "There  is  not  one  word 
about  baptism  here ;  not  one  allusion  to  it ;  nor  does 
the  argument,  in  the  remotest  degree,  bear  upon  it. 
The  question  was  not  whether  children  should  be 
baptized,  but  it  was  whether  there  should  be  a  sepa- 
ration between  man  and  wife,  where  the  one  was  a 
Christian  and  the  other  not.  Paul  states,  that  if 
such  a  separation  should  take  place,  it  would  im;ply 
that  the  marriage  was  improper ;  and,  of  course,  the 
children  must  be  reo-arded  as  unclean." 

o 

Thus  it  appears  that  this  passage,  so  often  made 
the  basis  of  sophistical  arguments,  affords  no  support 
to  the  cause  of  infant  baptism. 

I  have  now  noticed  the  prominent  New  Testament 
arguments  for  infant  baptism.  Is  there  precept  or 
example  to  justify  it  ?  Celebrated  Pedobaptists 
shall  answer  this  question.  Dr.  Wall,  in  his  "His- 
tory of  Infant  Baptism,"  on  the  very  first  page  of 


30  THREE  REASONS, 

his  "Preface,"  says,  that  "among  all  the  persons 
thsrt  are  recorded  as  baptized  by  the  apostles,  there 
is  no  express  mention  of  any  infant."  Neander,  un- 
doubtedly the  first  church  historian  of  his  age,  re- 
ferring to  "  the  latter  part  of  the  apostolic  age,"  ex- 
presses himself  thus:  "As  baptism  was  closely 
united  with  a  conscious  entrance  on  christian  com- 
munion, faith  and  baptism  were  always  connected  with 
one  another;  and  thus  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  baptism  was  performed  only  in  in- 
stances where  both  could  meet  together,  and  that 
^he  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  unknown  at  this 
period.  We  cannot  infer  the  existence  of  infant 
baptism  from  the  instance  of  the  baptism  of  whole 
families,  for  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  xvi,  15,  shows  the 
fallacy  of  such  a  conclusion,  as  from  that  it  appears 
that  the  whole  family  of  Stephanas,  who  were  bap- 
tized by  Paul,  consisted  of  adults."  Planting  and 
Training  of  the  Church,  pp.  101,  102.  Professor 
Stuart,  in  his  Essay  on  Baptism,  in  the  reference  he 
makes  to  infant  baptism,  says  :  "  Commands,  or  plain 
and  certain  examples,  in  the  New  Testament,  relative 
to  it,  I  do  not  find.  Nor  Avitli  my  views  of  it,  do  I 
need  them."  P.  101.  Dr.  Woods,  long  a  col- 
league of  Professor  Stuart,  in  the  Andover  Seminary, 
in  his  "Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism,"  remarks  as 
follows  :  "It  is  a  plain  case  that  there  is  no  express 
precept  respecting  infant  baptism  in  our  Sacred  Writ- 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  31 

ings.  The  proof,  then,  that  infant  baptism  is  a  di- 
vine institution,  must  be  made  out  in  another  way." 
P.  11. 

These  are  important  concessions,  made  by  men 
whose  celebrity  is  co-extensive  with  Christendom. 
Now  if  the  New  Testament  does  not  sustain  infant 
baptism,  ought  it  not  to  be  given  up?  If,  as  the 
Westminster  Confession  aflfirms,  **  Baptism  is  a  sa- 
crament of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus 
■  Christ,"  it  is  self-evident  we  ought  to  go  to  the  New 
Testament  to  learn  who  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. If  it  was  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  we  should 
allow  him  to  decide  who  are  to  be  baptized,  and  not 
refer  the  matter  to  either  Abraham  or  Moses.  But 
Pedobaptists,  unable  to  prove  infant  baptism  from  the 
New,  go  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  try  to  sustain  it  by 
reasoning,  analogy,  inference.  Was  there  ever  such 
a  course  adopted  before  to  establish  a  divine  ordin- 
ance ?  Ask  a  Jew  why  his  ancestors,  for  so  many 
centuries,  observed  the  feasts  of  the  Passover,  Pen- 
tecost, and  Tabernacles  ?  and  he  will  tell  you  that 
God  commanded  them  to  do  so.  Ask  a  Christian 
why  believers  should  be  baptized  and  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper  ?  and  his  response  will  be,  these  are 
injunctions  of  Jesus  Christ.  Ask  a  Pedobaptist, 
however.:  why  infants  ought  to  be  baptized  ?  and  he 
will  at  once  plunge  into  the  mazes  of  Judaism,  and 
argue  the  identity  of  the  old  "Jewish  Church,"  and 


32  THREE  REASONS, 

the  Gospel  Church,  insisting,  in  the  meantime,  most 
strenuously  on  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circum- 
cision. This  is  a  strange  method  of  proving  that 
infants  ought  to  be  baptized.  It  argues  a  conscious- 
ness of  the  utter  absence  of  New  Testament  au- 
thority for  infant  baptism.  It  indicates  that  there  is 
no  command  to  baptize  infants ;  for  a  command 
would  supersede  the  necessity  of  argument  to  show 
the  propriety  of  the  practice.  No  man  enters  into  an 
argument  to  prove  that  believers  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  positive  injunction  of  Christ  renders  it 
superfluous. 

Pedobaptists  assume  the  identity  of  what  they  call 
the  "Jewish  Church,"  with  the  Christian  Church, 
and  on  this  ground  insist  on  infant  membership.  I 
shall  allow  some  of  their  distinguished  men  to  speak 
for  themselves.  Mr.  Hibbard  says:  "Our  next 
proper  position  relates  to  the  substantial  oneness,  or 
identity,  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches.  I 
say  substantial  oneness,  because,  although  in  many 
secondary  and  adventitious  points  they  differ,  still,  in 
all  the  essential  features  of  the  real  church  of  God, 
they  are  one  and  the  same.  And  here  it  is  proper  to 
admonish  the  reader  of  the  importance  of  this  posi- 
tion. It  is  upon  this  ground  that  we  rest  the  weight 
of  the  Bible  argument  for  infant  baptism."  Christ- 
ian Baptism,  pp.  31,  32.  This  language  is  plain  and 
easily  understood,  though  any  one  familiar  with  the 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  33 

baptismal  controversy,  will  detect  in  the  phrase  *'  suh- 
stontial  oneness,"  an  unwillingness  to  indorse  the 
"identity"  theory  without  qualification. 

Dr.  Miller,  for  many  years  a  professor  in  the 
Princeton  Seminary,  New  Jersey,  says:  "As  the  in- 
fant seed  of  the  people  of  God  are  acknowledged  on 
all  hands  to  have  been  members  of  the  church, 
equally  with  their  parents,  under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  so  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  church  of 
God  is  the  same  in  substance  now  that  it  was  then.'*' 
The  italics  are  the  Doctor's.  Here  also  is  a  disposi- 
tion to  recoil  from  a  bold  avowal  of  the  doctrine  of 
identity.  "The  same  in  substance" — is  the  felicitous 
phrase  selected  to  meet  the  logical  exigencies  that 
might  possibly  occur.  Again  Dr.  M.  remarks,  "  It 
is  not  more  certain  that  a  man,  arrived  at  mature 
age,  is  the  same  individual  that  he  was  when  an  in- 
fant on  his  mother's  lap,  than  it  is  that  the  church, 
in  the  plentitude  of  her  light  and  privileges,  after  the 
coming  of  Christ,  is  the  same  church  which,  many 
centuries  before,  though  with  a  much  smaller  amount 
of  hght  and  privilege,  yet,  as  we  are  expressly  told 
in  the  New  Testament,  (Acts,  vii,  38),  enjoyed  the 
presence  and  guidance  of  her  divine  Head  in  the 
wilderness."     Sermons  on  Baptism,  pp.  18,  19. 

Dr.  Rice,  in  his  Lexington  Debate,  says,  "  The 
church,  then,  is  the  same  under  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian dispensations — the  same   into  which  God  did,  hy 


34  THREE  REASONS, 

positive  law,  2^'ui  believers  and  their  children^  P. 
285. 

Dr.  R.,  it  will  be  seen,  is  bolder  than  Mr.  Hibbard 
or  Dr.  Miller.  He  says  nothing  about  "substantial 
oneness" — "the  same  in  substance,"  etc.,  but  with 
characteristic  fearlessness  announces  his  position,  and 
to  attract  special  attention,  italicizes  the  words  in 
which  he  expresses  it. 

I  think  I  have  now  fairly  stated  the  Pedobaptist 
view  of  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  theocracy,  and 
the  church  of  Christ.  Can  this  view  be  sustained  ? 
It  is,  as  I  believe,  impossible  to  sustain  it.  I  shall 
aim  to  show  that  the  position  is  utterly  untenable. 
First,  however,  let  me  define  the  term  church.  It 
means  a  congregation,  an  assembly.  The  Greeks 
used  the  term  eJcMesia,  to  signify  an  assembly  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  purposes  for  which  the  as- 
sembly met.  Hence  the  tumultuous  concourse  of  the 
citizens  of  Ephesus  referred  to.  Acts,  xix,  32,  and 
41,  is  called  in  the  Greek  Testament  ekklesia,  and 
the  term  is  translated  assemhhj.  The  word,  there- 
fore, while  it  denotes  an  assembly,  does  not,  in  its 
general  signification,  denote  the  kind  of  assembly. 
This  being  the  case,  the  Jewish  nation  or  congrega- 
tion might  with  propriety  be  called  ekklesia  or 
church.  In  the  New  Testament,  however,  the  term 
ekklesia,  (generally  translated  church),  in  its  appli- 
cation to  the  followers  of  Christ,  refers  either  to  a 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  35 

particular  congregation  of  saints,  or  to  the  redeemed 
in  the  aggregate.  The  sacred  writers  speak  of  the 
churches  of  Asia,  the  churches  of  Judea,  the  churches 
of  Macedonia,  the  churches  of  Galatia,  etc.,  and  these 
churches  were  evidently  composed  of  persons  who 
made  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  In 
apostohc  times,  the  members  of  a  particular  congre- 
gation were  called  "saints,"  "believers,"  "disci- 
ples," etc.  They  were  separate  from  the  world — a 
spiritual  people.  Baptists  say  that  in  this  sense  of 
the  term  Church,  there  was  no  church  before  the 
gospel  dispensation.  There  were,  doubtless,  many 
pious  persons  from  the  days  of  Abel  to  the  coming 
of  Christ,  but  there  was  not  a  body  of  true  saints 
separate  from  the  world.  The  Jewish  nation  was 
separated  from  other  nations,  but  it  was  not  a  nation 
of  saints.  It  was  a  kind  of  politico-rehgious  body, 
and  circumcision  was  a  mark  of  nationality.  The 
righteous  and  the  wicked  belonged  to  this  body,  and 
were  entitled  to  its  privileges.  But  there  wag  no 
spiritual  organization  composed  of  regenerate  per- 
sons, called  out,  separated  from  the  Jews  as  a  people, 
till  John  the  Baptist  came  preaching  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Judea.  I  have  been  thus  particular  in  defin- 
ing the  term  church,  that  there  may  be  no  misappre- 
hension as  to  its  meaning. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  Jewish  theocracy 
and  the  Christian  Church  cannot  be  identical. 

1.  Because  when  the  Jewish  organization  had  been 


36  THREE    REASONS, 

in   existence  for  centuries,  the  prophets  predicted  the 
establishment  of  a  new  Mngdom. 

In  Isaiah  ii,  2,  it  is  -written,  *' And  it  sliall  come  to 
pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's 
house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tains, and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills ;  and  all 
nations  shall  flow  unto  it."  There  is  manifest  refer- 
ence here  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  is  not  in- 
timated that  this  kingdom  had  been  established,  but 
it  was  to  be  established.  The  phrase,  "Last  days,'* 
means  what  it  signifies  when  Paul  says  *'  God  has  in 
these  last  days  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son."  It  desig- 
nates the  period  of  the  gospel  dispensation.  The 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  ii,  44,  deserves  special  consid- 
eration. Having  referred  in  the  interpretation  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  to  the  Babylonian,  the 
Medo-Persian,  the  Grecian  and  the  Roman  empires, 
he  says  :  "And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the 
God  of  Heaven  set  up  a  kingdom,  which  shall  never 
be  destroyed;  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to 
other  people,  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  con- 
sume all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever." 
This  kingdom  was  to  be  set  up  several  centuries  after 
Daniel  prophesied.  The  phrase,  "Set  up,"  must  in- 
dicate the  establishment  of  a  new  kingdom.  There 
is  no  intimation  that  the  old  Jewish  kingdom  was  to 
be  reorganized.  This  new  kingdom  was  to  stand 
forever.  It  was  not  to  fall  like  the  secular  empires, 
symbolized  by  the  gold,   silver,  brass  and  iron  of 


WHY  I   AM   A   BAPTIST.  37 

Nebucluidnezzar's  image,  but  it  was  to  be  a  perma- 
nent kingdom — maintaining  an  uninterrupted  exist- 
ence amid  the  lapse  of  ages  and  the  revolutions  of  time. 
Who  does  not  see  that  this  kingdom  must  be  identical 
with  the  churcli  of  Christ,  of  which,  he  said:  ''The 
gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  The 
kingdom,  the  church,  is  to  stand.  Why  ?  Because 
the  machinations  of  Satan  cannot  overthrow  it.  John 
the  Baptist  referred,  in  his  preaching,  to  the  new 
kingdom.  His  voice  was  heard  in  the  wilderness  of 
Judea,  saj^ing,  "Repent  ye;  for  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  at  hand."  Was  it  the  old  Jewish  kingdom 
that  was  at  hand?  Obviously  it  was  not.  Jesus 
Chiist,  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministry,  an- 
nounced the  same  kingdom  as  at  hand.  He  said, 
"The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand:  repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel."  The 
time  to  which  the  prophets — Daniel  especially — re- 
ferred, was  fulfilled.  The  new  kingdom  was  at 
hand.  Hence  the  command  was,  "  Repent  ye,  and 
believe  the  gospel."  Such  preaching  had  never 
been  heard  before.  The  injunction,  "repent,"  was 
new ;  and  the  argument  enforcing  it  was  new. 
There  was  something  so  novel  and  so  distinctive  in 
the  preaching  of  Christ  and  his  harbinger,  as  to  indi- 
,cate  the  introduction  of  a  new  era.  That  the  preach- 
.}ing  of  John  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  era,  is  mani- 
fest from  the  Savior's  lanouage :  "The  law  and 
the  prophets  were  until  John :  since  that  time  the 
4 


38  THREE    REASONS, 

kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  pres- 
seth  into  it."  In  view  of  the  considerations  now 
presented,  I  ask,  how  can  the  Jewish  theocracy  and 
the  Gospel  Church  be  one  and  the  same?  If  the 
Jewish  kingdom  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  are  iden- 
tical, how  is  it  that  when  the  former  had  been  in  ex- 
istence for  centuries,  the  organization  of  the  latter 
was  foretold  by  the  prophets  ?  Can  the  identity  of 
the  two  be  established?  Surely  not.  And  yet,  upon 
this  identity,  Mr,  Hibbard  says,  "we  rest  the  weight 
of  the  Bible  argument  for  infant  baptism."  It  rests, 
then,  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  Mr.  H.  is  in  a 
dilemma.  He  may  choose  either  horn  of  this  di- 
lemma, and  it  will  gore  him  unmercifully.  If  such  a 
foundation  can  sustain  the  argument  for  infant  bap- 
tism, there  is  no  weight  in  the  argument:  but  if  the 
weight  of  the  argument  crushes  the  foundation,  there 
is  no  solidity  in  the  foundation. 

2.  Another  fact  fatal  to  the  identity  contended  for  is, 
that  those  who  were  regular  meinhers  of  the  old  Jew- 
ish Church,  could  not  hecome  members  of  the  Gosioel 
Church  without  repentance,  faith,  regeneration  and 
baptism. 

The  plainness  of  this  proposition  renders  it  need- 
less to  dwell  upon  it  at  any  great  length.  A  few  con- 
siderations will  sufficiently  develop  its  truth.  The 
inhabitants  of  Judea  were,  of  course,  members  of 
the  **  Jewish  Church."  I  would  prefer  the  phrase, 
"Jewish  theocracy  "  or  "Jewish  Commonwealth" — 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  39 

but  through  courtesy  I  T\'ill  say,  ''Jewish  Church." 
The  Jews  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  land  of  Judea 
were  members  of  this  church.  John  the  Baptist 
called  on  these  church  members  to  repent  and  do 
works  meet  for  repentance,  and  believe  on  the  com- 
ing Messiah  as  preparatory  to  baptism.  The  Phar- 
isees and  Sadducees,  two  prominent  sects  among  the 
Jews,  were  church  members.  John  spoke  of  them 
as  a  ** generation  of  vipers."  The  Pharisees  had  no 
adequate  conception  of  the  necessity  of  a  proper 
state  of  heart,  and  the  Sadducees  were  semi-infidels. 
They  were  no  doubt  recognized  as  worthy  members 
of  the  Jewish  Church,  but  they  were  utterly  unfit 
for  the  Church  of  Christ.  John  let  them  know  that 
their  relationship  to  Abraham  was  no  qualification 
for  a  place  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Nicodemus 
was  a  Pharisee,  and  an  official  member  of  this  Jew- 
ish Church,  and  yet  was  ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration.  Being  "born  again"  was  a  mystery 
to  him.  He  was  an  unregenerate  man.  The  Savior 
said  to  him,  ''Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  ye 
must  be  born  again."  Kor  did  Jesus  regard  any  of 
the  Jews  as  qualified  for  baptism  till  they  became  his 
disciples.  Hence  it  is  said  that  he  "  made  and  bap- 
tized more  disciples  than  John."  The  Scribes,  law- 
yers and  doctors  of  the  Jewish  Church,  the  great 
Teacher  denounced  as  hypocrites;  "for,"  says  he, 
"ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men: 
for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  neither   sufi'er  ye 


40  TRREE    REASONS, 

them  that  are  entering,  to  go  in."  This  passage 
proves  two  things :  That  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
then  in  existence,  and  that  it  was  not  identical  with 
the  Jewish  kingdom.  If  it  had  not  been  in  existence 
it  could  not  have  been  shut  up.  If  it  was  identical 
with  the  Jewish  kingdom,  the  Scribes  w^ere  already 
in  it.  But  they  were  not  in  it;  for  the  Savior  says, 
**ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,"  etc.  If,  then,  they 
were  in  the  Jewish  kine^dom,  and  were  not  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  the  two  kingdoms  cannot  be  the 
same.  It  is  almost  an  insult  to  my  readers  to  argue 
a  point  so  plain;  but  I  must  meet  and  refute  what 
Pedobaptists  call  arguments. 

3.  It  deserves  special  notice  that  the  covenant  of  the 
Jewish  Church  and  the  covenant  of  the  Gospel  Church 
are  different. 

The  truth  of  this  proposition  Pedobaptists  deny. 
They  assume  that  the  ** covenant  of  grace,"  or  ''gos- 
pel covenant,"  was  made  with  Abraham,  and  that 
the  ''covenant  of  circumcision"  was  so  identified 
with  it  that  circumcision  became  the  seal  of  the 
"  covenant  of  grace."  On  this  subject,  Dr.  Sum- 
mers, a  distinguished  Methodist  divine,  may  speak 
for  the  various  denominations  of  Pedobaptists.  In 
his  late  work  on  Baptism  he  says  that  "  infants  are 
specifically  embraced  in  the  gospel  covenant.  When 
that  covenant  w^as  made  with  Abraham,  his  children 
were  brought  under  its  provisions,  and  the  same  seal 
that  was  administered  to  him  was  administered  also 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  41 

to  thcni — including  both  those  that  ^vere  born  in  his 
house,  and  those  that  were  bought  Avith  his  money. 
They  were  all  alike  circumcised  in  token  of  their 
common  interest  in  that  covenant,  of  which  circum- 
cision was  the  appointed  symbol.  That  covenant  is 
still  in  force."     Page  23. 

Here  it  is  assumed  that  the  gospel  covenant  was 
made  with  Abraham — that  circumcision  was  its  seal, 
etc.  Pedobaptists  have  a  decided  preference  for  the 
singular  number.  They  will  not  say  covenants — it  is 
covenant  in  conversation,  in  books,  and  in  sermons. 
Paul  speaks  of  "covenants" — '^  covenants  of  prom- 
ise"— ''the  two  covencmts,"  etc.  Howthe  "covenant 
of  circumcision"  can  be  identified  with  the  "cove- 
nant of  grace,"  or  "gospel  covenant,"  defies  com- 
prehension. What  Dr.  Summers  calls  the  gospel 
covenant  was  not  made  with  Abraham.  He  quotes 
Paul,  but  Paul  does  not  say  so.  The  language  of 
the  apostle  is,  "  The  covenant  that  was  confirmed 
before  of  God  in  Christ,  (that  is  in  reference  to  the 
Messiah,)  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul  that  it  should 
make  the  promise  of  none  eflfect."  This  covenant 
was  confirmed  to  Abraham,  not  made  with  him.  It 
was  made  before.  It  must  have  had  an  existence, 
or  it  could  not  have  been  confirmed.  The  confirma- 
tion of  anything  implies  its  previous  existence. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  penetrate  the  counsels  of 
eternity  to  ascertain  the  particulars  of  the  origin  of 


42  THREE  REASONS, 

the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  pres- 
ent purpose  to  say  that  it  is  doubtless  the  result  of 
the  sublime  consultation  of  the  three  persons  of  the 
Godhead  in  reference  to  the  prospective  condemna- 
tion and  ruin  of  the  race  of  Adam.  The  first  inti- 
mation of  the  existence  of  this  covenant  was  given 
in  the  memorable  words,  **And  I  will  put  enmity 
between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed 
and  her  seed :  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt 
bruise  his  heel."  This  incipient  development  of 
God's  kindness  to  man  no  doubt  cheered  Abel, 
Enoch,  and  all  the  pious  who  lived  in  the  world's 
infancy.  The  nature  of  the  covenant  recognized 
when  mercy's  faint  whisperings  were  first  heard, 
was  more  fully  developed  when  that  covenant  was 
covjirmed  to  Abraham  in  the  remarkable  words,  "In 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
Irrespectively  of  the  provisions  of  this  covenant  there 
never  has  been,  and  there  never  will  be  salvation  for 
Jew  or  Gentile.  There  is  no  salvation  except  in  the 
Messiah,  and  Paul  informs  us  that  he  is  referred  to 
as  the  "  seed"  of  Abraham.  *'  He  saith  not,  and  io 
seeds  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed, 
which  is  Christ."  The  covenant  with  respect  to  the 
Messiah  was  confirmed  to  Abraham  when  he  was 
seventy-five  years  old,  (Genesis,  xii,)  and  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  was  made  with  him  when  he  had 
reached  his  ninety-ninth  year,  (Genesis,  xvii). 
Twenty-four   years   intervened   between  the  two 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  43 

transactions,  and  yet  Pedobaptists  insist  there  was 
but  one  covenant !  One  covenant  was  confirmed  to 
Abraham,  and  one  made  with  him,  and  there  wa^ 
but  one.  That  is,  in  Pedobaptist  arithmetic,  one  and 
one  do  not  make  two,  but  one! 

Now  if,  according  to  Dr.  Summers,  the  gospel 
covenant  was  made  with  Abraham,  and  if  circum- 
cision was  the  seal  of  that  covenant,  then  it  had  no 
seal  for  twenty-four  years  after  it  was  made.  More- 
over, if  the  gospel  covenant  or  covenant  of  grace 
was  made  with  Abraham,  by  the  provisions  of  what 
covenant  were  Abel,  Enoch  and  others  saved  who 
lived  before  the  days  of  Abraham?  This  question 
I  submit  to  all  the  Pedobaptist  doctors  of  divinity  in 
Christendom.  If  they  will  only  consider  it  they  will 
see  how  absurd  it  is  to  say  that  the  gospel  covenant 
or  covenant  of  grace  was  made  with  Abraham.  If, 
as  Dr.  Summers  afiBrms,  circumcision  was  the  seal 
of  this  covenant,  what  became  of  females?  Was 
.there  no  securement  of  the  blessinq-s  of  the  covenant 
to 'them?  or  Avere  they  left  to  the  '•' uncovenanted 
mercies"  of  God?  The  truth  is,  the  sacred  writers 
never  refer  to  circumcision  or  baptism  as  a  "seal" 
of  a  covenant.  Circumcision  is  called  a  "  token 
of  the  covenant"  God  made  with  Abraham,  and 
a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he 
had,  yet  being  uncircumcised."  It  was  never  a  seal 
of  the  rigliteousness  of  the  faith  of  any  other  man. 
Cnder  the  gospel  dispensation  baptism  is  not  a  seal. 


44  THREE    REASONS, 

and  Pedobaptists  know  not  whereof  they  affirm 
when  they  so  represent  it.  Believers  are  "  sealed 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  But,  for  argu- 
ment's sake,  let  baptism  be  considered  a  seal — a  seal 
of  the  same  covenant  which,  it  is  said,  was  formerly 
scaled  by  circumcision.  Then  the  perplexing  ques- 
tion arises,  Why  apply  the  seal  of  baptism  to  both 
St  xes,  when  the  seal  of  circumcision  was  applied  to 
but  one  ?  Circumcision,  it  is  argued,  was  a  type  of 
baptism.  This  is  a  burlesque  on  logic.  The  type 
liad  reference  to  males  alone.  Therefore  the  anti- 
type has  reference  to  both  males  and  females!  Such 
reasoning  makes  sad  havoc  of  common  sense.  There 
is  another  absurdity  in  making  baptism  the  anti-type 
of  circumcision.  Baptism  is  referred  to  by  Peter  as 
a  "figure."  If,  then,  circumcision  was  a  type  of  it, 
it  was  a  type  of  a  type,  or  a  figure  of  a  figure,  which 
is  preposterous. 

But  to  be  more  specific  with  regard  to  the  cove- 
nants :  The  covenant  of  circumcision  made  with 
Abraham  received  its  full  development  in  the  cove- 
nant of  Mount  Sinai.  There  was,  if  the  expression 
is  allowable,  a  new  edition  of  the  covenant.  The 
Sinaic  regulations  were  made  in  pursuance  of  the 
provisions  of  th^  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and 
on  this  account  circumcision,  the  "token  of  the  cov- 
enant," was  incorporated  into  those  regulations,  and 
became  a  rite  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  Hence  Jesus 
said  to  the  J3ws,   "If  a  man  on  the   Sabbath  day 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  45 

receive  circumcision,  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not 
he  broken;  are  ye  angry  at  me,  because  I  have  made 
a  man  every  whit  whole  on  the  Sabbath  day?"  This 
lano'uao-e  shows  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
was  so  identified  with  the  Sinaic  covenant  that  the 
failure  to  circumcise  a  m?in  was  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  Moses.  The  old  Jewish  Church,  therefore, 
grew  out  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  > which  was 
the  germ  of  the  Sinaic  covenant  that  God  made  with 
the  Israelites  when  he  "took  them  by  the  hand  to 
lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  This  cove- 
nant, entered  into  at  Mount  Sinai,  was  to  continue  in 
force,  and  did  continue  in  force,  till  superseded  by 
another  and  a  better  covenant.  It  preserved  the 
nationality  of  the  Jews,  while  circumcision  marked 
that  nationality,  and  indicated  a  natural  relationship 
to  Abraham.  This  celebrated  patriarch  was  to  have 
a  numerous  natural  seed,  to  winch  reference  is  made 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision — and  by  virtue  of 
the  provisions  of  the  covenant  confirmed  to  him  in 
reference  to  the  Messiah,  he  was  to  have  a  spiritual 
seed  also.  He  was  to  be  the  father  of  the  faithful. 
Hence  Paul  says,  "  They  who  are  of  faith,  the  same 
are  the  children  of  Abraham."  "If  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed."  "  That  he  might  be 
the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be 
not  circumcised,"  etc.  The  process  of  spiritual  fili- 
ation to  Abraham  is  effected  by  faith.  Jews,  there- 
fore, his  natural   seed,  cannot  become  his  spiritual 


46  THREE  REASONS, 

seed  without^  faith.  But  if  faith  creates  the  spiritual 
relationship  to  Abraham,  Gtnliles  may  become  his 
spiritual  seed  as  well  as  Jews,  for  they  are  equally 
capable  of  faith.  And  for  the  encouragement  of 
Gentiles  who  were  uncircumcised,  Paul  refers  to  the 
fact  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  he/ore  he 
was  circumcised. 

I  have  4'eferred  to  the  perfect  development  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  of  circumcision  in  the  Sinaic 
covenant.  I  may  now  refer  to  the  full  development 
of  the  covenant  respecting  the  Messiah  in  the  new 
covenant,  out  of  which  has  grown  the  Gospel  Church. 
This  is  termed  the  new  covenant  in  contradistinction 
from  the  Sinaic  covenant.  The  development  of  its 
provisions  was  to  occur  many  centuries  subsequent  to 
the  giving  of  the  law,  although  those  provisions  had 
an  embrj-o  existence  in  the  covenant  confirmed  to 
Abraham  concerning  Christ.  Jeremiah,  in  the  thirty- 
first  chapter  of  his  prophecy,  refers  to  the  two  cove- 
nants— the  old  and  the  new — and  Paul,  in  the  eighth 
chapter  of  Hebrews,  quotes  Jeremiah  as  follows: 
"Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and 
with  the  house  of  Judah:  not  according  to  the  cove- 
n;mt  that  I  made  with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  when 
I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt;  because  they  continued  not  in  my 
covenant,  and  I  regarded  them  not,  saith  the  Lord. 
For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with   the 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  47 

house  of  Israel,  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord;  I 
will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in 
their  hearts;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people :  And  they  shall  not  teach 
every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother, 
saying.  Know  the  Lord;  for  all  shall  know  me,  from 
the  least  to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  be  merciful  to 
their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins  and  their  in- 
iquities will  I  remember  no  more."  This  is  the 
''new  covenant" — the  "better  covenant  which  was 
established  upon  better  promises"  —  the  covenant 
which  is  pre-eminently  spiritual — and  of  which  Jesus 
is  the  Mediator.  The  mediatorship  of  the  Messiah, 
in  connection  with  this  covenant,  shows  that  the 
gospel  covenant  grows  out  of  the  covenant  "con- 
firmed of  God"  to  Abraham  concerning  Christ. 

How  essentially  different  the  old  covenant  and  the 
new  !  And  yet  Pedobaptists  insist  that  the  old  Jew- 
ish Church  and  the  Christian  Church  are  the  same ! 
"  God  found  fault  with  the  old  covenant,"  and  super- 
seded it  by  the  new  one;  and  yet,  it  seems,  that  the 
new,  which  supersedes  the  old,  is  substantially  iden- 
tical with  it !  It  is  strange  that  men  do  not  observe 
tliat  God,  in  describing  the  new  covenant,  says  ex- 
pressl}^ — ^"not  according  to  the  covenant  that 
I  MADE  with  their  FATHERS" — the  old  coveuaut. 
I  suppose  it  will  be  said  that  the  Sinaic  covenant  has 
"vanished  away,"  but  that  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, of  Avhich  circumcision  was  a  token,   is  still  in 


48  THREE  REASONS, 

force.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  leave  it  for  others  to  say 
that  I  have  shown  that  the  covenant  of  ch-cumcision 
was  merged  in  the  covenant  of  Sinai.  This  being 
the  case,  it  must  have  passed  away  with  it. 

Several  distinctive  points  of  difference  between  the 
old  covenant  and  the  new  may  be  seen  in  Galatians 
iv,  22-31.  Mr.  Barnes  thinks  this  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture rather  difficult  of  exposition.  It  does  no  doubt 
present  serious  difficulties  to  the  mind  of  a  Pedobap- 
tist  expositor.  The  wonder  is  that  the  man  who  has 
anything  like  a  correct  understanding  of  it,  can  be  a 
Pedobaptist.  There  are  four  allegorical  personages 
referred  to  by  the  apostle — namely,  Hagar,  Ishmael, 
Sarah  and  Isaac.  Hagar  was  a  "  bondmaid,"  and 
gave  birth  to  a  son  ** after  the  flesh" — that  is,  there 
was  in  his  birth  no  departure  from  the  principles  of 
ordinary  generation.  This  "bondwoman"  represents 
the  Sinaic  covenant,  and  "  answereth  to  Jerusalem, 
which  now  is  " — the  old  Jewish  Church.  Mount  Sinai, 
represented  by  Hagar,  "gendereth  to  bondage." 
Hence  ''Jerusalem" — the  old  Jewish  Church — is 
said  to  be  "in  bondao-e  with  her  children."  To 
"gender  to  bondage"  was  all  that  Sinai  could  do. 
There  was  no  provision  in  the  Sinaic  covenant  for 
anything  more.  Sarah,  the  free  woman,  represents 
the  new  covenant,  and  the  Gospel  Church,  of  which 
that  covenant  is  the  charter.  She  gave  birth  to 
Isaac,  who  was  born  "by  promise" — "after  the 
Spirit" — that  is,  according  to  a  promise,  the  fulfill- 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  49 

ment  of  whicli  involved  a  supernatural  agency.  ''Je- 
rusalem, which  is  above" — the  Christian  Church, 
represented  by  Sarah,  ''is  free,  which  is  the  mother 
of  us  all" — of  all  Christians.  Believers  in  Christ 
are  "  the  children  of  promise,  as  Isaac  was."  They 
are  born  "after  the  Spirit,"  and  "of  the  Spirit." 
And  thus  it  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  in  his  noontide 
glory,  that  while  the  old  Jewish  Church  was  supplied 
with  its  members  by  generation,  the  Church  of  Christ 
is  furnished  with  its  members  by  regeneration.  This 
is  one  prominent  difference  between  the  two,  and  it 
is  o-reat  as  that  betAveen  lioht  and  darkness,  or  im- 
mortality  and  death.  "  But  as  then,"  says  the 
apostle,  "he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh  persecuted 
him  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit,  even  so  it  is  now." 
Ishmael  persecuted  Isaac,  and  so  the  children  of  the 
Sinaic  covenant,  Abraham's  seed  according  to  the 
flesh,  persecuted,  in  apostolic  times,  the  beneficiaries 
of  the  new  covenant,  Abraham's  spiritual  seed.  Sinai, 
in  "gendering  to  bondage,"  also  "gendered"  a  per- 
secuting spirit.  And  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  a 
large  infusion  of  Judaism  into  the  sentiments  of  a 
religious  denomination,  Avill  make  it  a  persecuting 
denomination.  This  fact  is  both  sio-nificant  and  suq;- 
gestive.  ^Nevertheless,  what  saitli  the  Scripture  ? 
"  Cast  out  the  bondwoman  and  her  son  ;  for  the  son 
of  the  bondwoman  shall  not  be  heir  with  the  son 
of  the  free  woman.  So  then,  brethren,  we  are  not 
children  of  the  bondwoman,  but  of  the  free." 


50  THREE    REASONS, 

Here  is  authority  for  keeping  all  except  regener- 
ate persons  out  of  the  church  of  Christ.  "  Cast  out 
the  bondwoman  and  her  son."  The  Jews,  con- 
sidered as  Abraham's  natural  seed,  had  no  right  to 
the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  church  of  Christ. 
They  had  first  to  become  Christ's;  then  they  were 
Abraham's  seed  in  the  most  important  sense.  Paul 
never  forgot  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
gospel  economy,  announced  by  John  the  Baptist 
when  he  said  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  "  Think 
not  to  say  within  yourselves  we  have  Abraham  to 
our  father ;  for  I  say  unto  you  that  God  is  able  of 
these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham.'* 
They  were,  under  the  new  dispensation,  to  claim 
nothing  on  the  ground  of  their  lineal  descent  from 
Abraham.  Religion  was  to  be  an  intensely  personal 
concern.  Daniel  Webster  once  said,  **The  bed  of 
death  brings  every  human  being  to  his  pure  indi- 
viduality." This  is  true,  but  Christianity  does  the 
same  thing  before  it  is  done  by  "the  bed  of  death." 
The  gospel  places  every  one  on  the  basis  of  his 
"pure  individuality"  before  God.  But  enough  on 
this  point.  I  have  examined  at  some  length  the 
"covenants,"  about  which  so  much  is  said  in  the 
baptismal  controversy.  I  think  I  have  shown  that 
the  covenant  of  the  Jewish  church  and  the  covenant 
of  the  gospel  church  are  essentially  different,  and  that 
the  "substantial  identity"  of  the  two  churches,  as 
contended  for  by  Pedobaptists,  cannot  be  maintained. 


WHY  I  AM   A  BAPTIST.  51 

4.  The  supposed  identity  of  tlie  Jewish  Church 
and  the  Christian  Church  involves  absurdities  and 
impossibilities. 

According-  to  this  view  the  Scribes,  Pharisees,  Sad- 
ducees,  and  all  the  Jews,  were  members  of  the 
church,  and  yet  it  is  notorious  that  they  procured 
the  crucifixion  of  the  Head  of  the  church.  These 
church  members,  many  of  them  occupying  ''official 
positions,"  evinced  the  most  rancorous  enmity  to 
Jesus  Christ,  and  said,  "We  will  not  have  this  man 
to  reign  over  us."  They  charged  him  with  being  in 
league  with  Beelzebub  in  the  expulsion  of  demons. 
And  when  he  was  condemned  to  death  they  said, 
"  His  blood  be  upon  us  and  our  children."  Strange 
language  for  church  members  to  employ!  Who  can 
believe  they  were  members  of  a  church  "the  same 
in  substance"  with  the  Christian  Church?  This 
view  of  the  matter  evidently  involves  an  absurdity. 
Nor  is  this  all.  If  the  Pedobaptist  position  is  ten- 
able the  three  thousand  converts  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost were  added  to  the  church,  though  they  were 
in  it  before !  The  Lord  added  daily  to  the  church 
not  only  the  saved,  but  those  already  members! 
When  a  great  company  of  priests  became  obedient 
to  the  faith,  they  joined  themselves  to  the  apostles, 
and  were  put  out  of  the  synagogues,  though  the 
Jews  putting  them  out  were  of  the  same  church ! 
Saul  of  Tarsus  "persecuted  the  church  and  wasted 
it'*  —  "made   havoc"   of  it — and  when   converted 


52  THREE    REASONS, 

became  a  member  of  the  church,  though  he  had 
always  been  one!  Ay,  more,  he  obtained  his  author- 
ity to  persecute  from  official  members  of  the  church! 
These  and  many  other  absurdities  and  impossibilities 
are  involved  in  the  supposition  that  the  Jewish  Church 
and  the  Christian  Church  are  the  same.  They  are 
not  ithe  same.  The  phrases,  "same  in  substance," 
"substantially  identical,"  etc.,  cannot  avail  Pedo- 
baptists;  for  there  is  no  sort  of  identity.  A  "  sub- 
stantial sameness"  cannot  be  discovered  with  a  theo- 
logical microscope.  Paul's  teaching  is  that  Jesus 
Christ  makes  "of  twain  one  new  man."  That  is, 
regenerated  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  the  materials  of 
which  the  new  man  or  church  is  composed.  There 
is  reference  to  an  organization,  and  the  descriptive 
epithet  "new"  is  applied  to  it.  Pedobaptists  vir- 
tually say  that  the  Lord  Jesus  did  not  make  a  "  new 
man."  They  advocate  the  claims  of- the  "old  man," 
admitting;,  however,  that  he  is  changed  in  some  im- 
material  respects,  so  that  his  "substantial  identity" 
remains  unimpaired. 

What  effect  would  have  been  produced  on  the 
minds  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  in  apostolic  times  if 
it  had  been  intimated  that  their  church  was  identical 
with  the  Gospel  church?  They  would  have  been 
highly  insulted.  And  Paul  exemplified  the  most 
indignant  eloquence  whenever  false  teachers  at- 
tempted to  contaminate  the  purity  of  the  Christian 
Church  with  the  leaven  of  Judaism.     The  old  Jew- 


WKY   I   AM    A    BAPTIST.  63 

ish  Church  and  the  Christian  Church  were  then 
regarded  by  behevers  and  unbehevers  as  essentially 
distinct.  No  one  thought  of  their  "substantial  iden- 
tity;" for  infant  baptism  was  unknown,  and  there 
was  nothing  to  suggest  the  "identity"  doctrine. 
The  truth  is,  it  is  as  easy  for  a  camel  to  go  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle  as  for  the  identity  of  the  Jewish 
Church  and  the  Christian  Church  to  be  maintained. 
And  if  there  is  no  identity,  infant  membership  in 
the  Jewish  commonwealth  is  no  authority  for  infant 
membership  in  the  gospel  church ;  and  it  is  perfectly 
gratuitous  to  insist  that  baptism  has  come  in  the 
place  of  circumcision.  Still  the  advocates  of  infant 
baptism  argue  that  circumcision  is  superseded  by 
baptism,  and  that  as  infants  were  circumcised  under 
the  old,  they  should  be  baptized  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation. Hence  Dr.  Miller  says,  "Our  next  step 
is  to  show  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision, and,  therefore,  that  the  former  is  rightfully 
and  properly  applied  to  the  same  subjects  as  the 
latter."  Again:  "  There  is  the  best  foundation  for 
asserting,  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision  Yet,  though  baptism  manifestly  comes 

in  the  place  of  circumcision,  there  are  points  in  regard 
to  which  the  former  differs  materially  from  the 
latter."  Sermons  on  Baptism,  pp.  22,  23.  Here 
the  doctrine  is  stated  unequivocally  that  baptism 
comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  How  it  takes  its 
place,  and  yet  "differs  materially  from  it"  on  some 
3 


54  TRREE    REASONS, 

**  points,"  must  ever  be  ii  m3^stery  to  all  men  who 
have  not  a  large  share  of  Jesuitical  penetration. 

Dr.  Rice  says:  *'It  is  certain  that  baptism  came 
in  place  of  circumcision — that  it  answers  the  same 
ends  in  the  church  now,  that  were  answered  by  cir- 
cumcision under  the  former  dispensation."  Lexing- 
ton Debate,  p.  302. 

Dr.  Summers  affirms,  "that  baptism  is  the  ordi- 
nance of  initiation  into  the  church,  and  the  sign  and 
seal  of  the  covenant  now,  as  circumcision  was  for- 
merly, is  evident."     Summers  on  Baptism,  pp.  25,  26. 

I  have  now  presented  strong  Presbyterian  and 
Methodist  authority,  and  in  the  f^xce  of  it  I  fearlessly 
deny  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. The  argument  for  infant  baptism  derived 
from  the  supposed  substitution  referred  to  is,  in  view 
of  the  following  considerations,  altogether  incon- 
clusive. 

1.  It  was  necessary  for  the  circumcised  to  he  haptized 
before  they  could  lecome  members  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

How  was  this,  if  baptism  came  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  is  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant?  Was 
the  covenant  first  sealed  by  circumcision,  and  subse- 
quently sealed  by  baptism?  Were  there  two  seals? 
If  so,  away  goes  the  substitution  theory.  If  the 
same  persons  were  circumcised  and  baptized,  there 
was,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  no  substitution 
of  baptism  for  circumcision.     In  their  case  circum- 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  56 

cision  was  not  abolished,  and  nothing  could  take  its 
place.  It  occupied  its  own  place,  and  that  place  had 
to  be  vacated  before  anything  else  could  occupy  it. 
Dr.  Miller  speaks  of  baptism  as  coming  ''in  the  room" 
of  circumcision;  but  there  w^as  no  ''room''  till  the 
non-observance  of  circumcision  made  "room."  Why, 
then,  were  those  who  had  been  circumcised  baptized? 
Why  was  Jesus  himself  both  circumcised  and  bap- 
tized ?  These  are  unanswerable  questions,  if,  as  Pe- 
dobaptists  insist,  baptism  came  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. Dr.  Miller's  views  involve  another  diffi- 
culty. He  says,  p.  74,  "  The  children  of  professing 
Christians  are  already  in  the  church.  They  were 
born  members.  Their  baptism  did  not  make  them 
members.  It  was  a  public  ratification  and  recogni- 
tion of  their  membership.  They  were  baptized  be- 
cause they  w^ere  members." 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  these  are  sophistical  assump- 
tions. One  fact  scatters  them  to  the  four  winds  of 
heaven.  That  fact  is  that  the  New  Testament  sub- 
jects of  baptism  are  never  represented  as  baptized, 
because  they  are  in  the  church,  but  that  they  may 
enter  into  it.  Dr.  M.'s  reason  for  administering  bap- 
tism labors  under  the  misfortune  of  being  remarkably 
unscriptural.  By  the  way,  if  the  infants  of  profess- 
ing Christians  are  in  the  church  by  virtue  of  their 
birth,  this  is  a  very  good  reason  for  not  baptizing 
them  at  all. 

Any  one  who  is  skilled  in  the  baptismal  contro- 


56  THREE  REASONS, 

versy  can  see  that  Dr.  M.'s  Abrahamic  anu  Judaisttc 
notions  vitiate  his  logic  in  its  application  to  evangeli- 
cal subjects.  He  reasoned  in  this  way:  The  natural 
seed  of  Abraham  were  members  of  the  Jewish  national 
Church  by  virtue  of  their  birth.  And  so  far  his  rea- 
soning was  correct.  They  were  circumcised  because 
they  were  by  natural  generation  made  beneficiaries 
of  the  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  the 
"token."  Genesis  xvii,  11.  Dr.  M.'s  next  step  was 
this :  The  children  of  professing  Christians  are  born 
members  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  are  entitled 
to  baptism,  even  as  Abraham's  natural  seed  were 
entitled  to  circumcision.  But  is  this  true?  It  is  not. 
Whatever  rational  analogy  may  be  traced  between 
circumcision  and  baptism  must  inure  to  the  opponents 
of  infant  baptism.  How  plain  this  is !  Abraham's 
natural  seed  were  circumcised  because  they  had  a 
birthright  interest  in  the  'covenant  God  made  with 
Abraham.  Christians  are  Abraham's  spiritual  seed. 
They  become  so  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  are  bene- 
ficiaries of  the  new  covenant,  the  provisions  of  which 
are  eminently  spiritual.  There  is  a  recognition  of 
their  interest  in  the  blessings  of  this  covenant  in 
baptism.  It  Avas  proper  to  circumcise  Abraham's 
natural  seed — it  is  proper  to  baptize  his  spiritual 
seed.  But  who  are  his  spiritual  seed  ?  Believers  in 
Christ,  and  believers  alone.  Infants,  therefore,  have 
no  right  to  baptism,  because  they  are  not  Abraham's 
spiritual  seed.     Jewish  infants  were  tit  subjects  for 


•WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  67 

Circumcision,  because  they  were  Abraham's  natural 
seed ;  but  neither  Jewish  nor  Gentile  infants  can  be 
his  spiritual  seed — because  of  their  incapacity  to 
exercise  faith — and  therefore  they  ought  not  to  be 
baptized.  I  insist,  then,  that  correct  analogical  rea- 
soning from  circumcision  to  baptism,  saps  the  very 
foundation  of  Pedobaptism,  and  furnishes  Baptists 
with  an  argument,  of  the  strength  of  which  they 
have  never  fully  availed  themselves.  This  may  be 
considered  a  digression.  If  so  I  return  to  the  subject 
of  which  I  was  treating.  I  was  aiming  to  show  that 
baptism  did  not  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision, 
and  referred  to  the  well  known  fact  that  multitudes 
of  circumcised  persons  were  also  baptized.  This,  it 
seems  to  me,  could  never  have  taken  place  if  bap- 
tism came  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  The  circum- 
cision of  Timothy  is,  in  this  connection,  worthy  of 
notice.  His  mother  was  a  Jewess,  and  his  father  a 
Greek.  Owing  to  the  latter  fact,  doubtless,  he 
remained  uncircumcised.  After  his  conversion  and 
baptism,  Timothy  was  circumcised  by  Paul.  This 
was  done  to  conciliate  the  Jews — which  shows  that 
they  considered  circumcision  a  mark  of  nationality. 
Now,  the  question  arises,  Why  did  Paul  circumcise 
Timothy,  who  had  been  baptized,  if  baptism  came  in 
the  place  of  circumcision?  Thus,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, we  have  baptism  administered  after  ciicum- 
cision,  and  circumcision  performed  after  baptism,  and 


58  THREE    REASONS, 

yet  Pedobaptists  say  that  the  one  came  in  the  place 
of  the  other. 

2.  A  second  fad  wortlnj  of  notice  is  that  circum- 
cision was  confined  to  one  sex. 

Premises  and  conclusions  are  often  the  poles 
asunder.  Of  this  we  have  a  striking  illustration  in 
the  reasoning  of  Pedobaptists  from  the  circumcision 
of  children  under  the  old  dispensation  to  the  baptism 
of  children  under  the  new.  The  fact  they  begin 
with  is  of  course  this  :  Male  children  were  circum- 
cised under  the  Old  Testament  economy.  The  de- 
duction is,  Therefore  male  and  female  children  ought 
to  be  baptized  under  the  gospel  economy!  Is  this 
logic?  If  but  one  sex  is  recognized  in  the  premise, 
how  is  it  that  there  is  a  recognition  of  both  sexes  in 
the  conclusion?  There  must  be  something  wrong- 
in  the  reasoning,  which  brings  out  more  in  the  con- 
clusions than  is  contained  in  the  premises.  This  is 
the  infelicity  of  the  Pedobaptists'  argument  in  refer- 
ence to  the  matter  now  und^r  consideration.  They 
most  gratuitously  infer,  that  as  children  of  one  sex 
were  formerly  circumcised,  therefore  children  of 
both  sexes  should  now  be  baptized.  I  maintain 
that  if  baptism  came  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  ii 
ought  to  be  administered  exclusively  to  males.  But 
it  is  by  divine  authority  administered  to  females ; 
therefore  it  did  not  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 
Pedobaptists  must  admit  that,  so  far  as  females  are 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  59 

concerned,  baptism  did  not  come  in  tlie  place  of  cir- 
cumcision ;  for  circumcision  occupied  no  place,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  displaced  by  anything  else. 
This,  however,  is  so  plain  as  to  need  no  elaboration. 

3.  The  eighth  day  was  appointed  for  the  circumcision 
of  infants. 

Is  this  true  of  infant  baptism?  The  thing  itself  is 
not  commanded,  to  say  nothing  of  the  time.  But  I 
meet  Pedobaptists  on  their  own  ground.  They  say 
baptism  has  come  **in  the  room  of  circumcision.'* 
If  they  believe  this,  consistency  requires  that  they 
baptize  male  children  alone,  and  that  they  be  bap- 
tized on  the  eighth  day.  Do  they  pursue  this  course? 
They  do  not,  and  their  failure  to  do  so  might,  by  the 
censorious,  be  construed  into  a  want  of  confidence  in 
the  correctness  of  their  sentiments. 

4.  Jewish  servants  of  any  age  were  circumcised  by 
virtue  of  their  relation  to  their  masters. 

Abraham  circumcised  his  servants  as  well  as  his 
children.  The  Jews,  no  doubt,  copied  his  example. 
The  relation  servants  sustained  to  their  masters,  en- 
titled them  to  circumcision,  and  made  it  incumbent 
on  the  masters  to  perform  the  rite.  Now,  if  bap- 
tism has  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  all  Pe- 
dobaptist  masters  are  under  obligation  to  baptize 
their  male  servants,  without  regard  to  age.  Those 
born  in  their  houses  ought,  of  course,  to  be  baptized 
on  the  eighth  day,  and  those  "bought  with  their 
money/*  ought  to  be  baptized  if  they  are  eighty 


60  THREE  REASONS, 

years  old.  When  Pedobaptists  adopt  this  practice, 
Baptists,  it  is  true,  will  smile  at  their  credulity,  but 
respect  their  sincerity.  Who  beheves  that  servants 
of  any  age  are  entitled  to  baptism  in  consequence  of 
the  relation  they  sustain  to  their  masters  ?  Some  few 
may  probably  be  found  who  beheve  it,  and  they — 
they  alone — believe  that  baptism  came  in  the  place  of 
circumcision.  I  have  intimated  that  masters  ought 
to  baptize  their  own  servants.  On  Pedobaptist 
principles,  they  ought  to  baptize  their  servants  and 
children  too.  Jewish  fathers  and  masters  circumcised 
their  children  and  servants.  There  were  no  persons 
corresponding  to  modern  "baptizers,"  called  on  to 
perform  the  ceremony.  Every  father  and  master 
had  the  right  to  ofificiate,  and  it  is  well-known  that  in 
one  instance,  (Exodus,  iv,  25,)  the  mother  "cut  off 
the  foreskin  of  her  son."  If  baptism  has  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision,  it  occupies  its  place;  and 
fiathers  and  masters,  mothers  and  mistresses  have  an 
undoubted  right,  and  it  is  their  imperative  duty,  to 
baptize  their  male  children  and  servants.  Who,  in 
view  of  this  fact,  can  believe  that  baptism  has  come 
in  the  room  of  circumcision  ? 

6.  The  council  of  Apostles,  Elders  and  brethren  at 
Jerusalem,,  virtually  denied  the  substitution  of  bai^tism 
for  circumcision. 

In  Acts  XV,  we  have  an  account  of  this  council. 
The  reason  for  its  convocation  was  this :  "  Certain 
men"  went  from  Judea  to  Antioch,  and  ''taught  the 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  61 

brethren,"  saying:  "Except  ye  be  circumcised  after 
the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  Paul 
and  Barnabas  joined  issue  with  these  "men,'-'  and 
after  much  disputation,  it  was  determined  to  send  a 
deputation  to  Jerusalem,  to  consult  the  "  apostles  and 
elders  about  this  question."  Paul  and  Barnabas  be- 
longed to  this  deputation,  and  upon  their  arrival  at 
Jerusalem,  hefore  the  council  met,  some  of  the  believ- 
ing Pharisees  urged  the  necessity  of  circumcision. 
The  same  question,  therefore,  was  agitated  both  at 
Antioch  and  Jerusalem.  That  question  was  whether 
the  believino-  Gentiles  ouo-ht  to  be  circumcised.  The 
council  met,  and  after  due  deliberation  and  consulta- 
tion, "it  pleased  the  apostles  and  elders,  with  the 
whole  church,"  to  decide  against  the  circumcision  of 
the  Gentiles.  K^ow,  if  baptism  came  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  the  apostles  knew  it;  and  this  was  the 
time  to  declare  it.  A  simple  statement  of  the  fact 
would  have  superseded  all  discussion.  Why  did  they 
not  say,  "circumcision  is  unnecessary,  because  bap- 
tism has  taken  its  place?"  This  is  what  Pedobaptists 
would  have  said  if  they  had  been  in  that  council. 
The  inspired  apostles,  however,  did  not  say  it.  In- 
deed the  decision  of  the  council  had  reference  to  the 
believing  Gentiles  alone,  and  the  understanding 
evidently  was  that  believing  Jews  were  at  liberty  to 
circumcise  their  children.  This  we  may  learn  from 
Acts,  xxi,  17 — 25,  and  it  is  a  fact  utterly  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circum- 
6 


62  THREE   REASONS, 

cision.  When  circumcision  was  reiifarded  as  a  mark 
to  designate  nationality,  Paul  made  no  objection  to  it, 
but  when  its  necessity  to  salvation  was  urged,  he 
considered  the  great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
in  Christ,  disparaged  and  shorn  of  its  glory.  To  all 
circumcised  with  this  latter  view,  he  said:  **If  ye  be 
circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing."  But 
to  return  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem :  If  baptism 
came  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  the  very  reason 
which  called  that  council  together,  must  have  led  to 
a  declaration  of  the  fact,  and  it  is  infinitely  unac- 
countable that  it  did  not.  The  truth  is,  baptism  was 
not,  in  apostolic  times,  considered  a  substitute  for 
circumcision.  Hence  the  Jerusalem  council  could 
not,  and  did  not  say  it  was.  Its  decision  involved  a 
virtual  denial  of  the  very  thing  for  which  Pedobap- 
tists  so  strenuously  contend. 

I  have  .now  given  a  specimen,  and  but  a  speci- 
men, of  the  considerations  which  show  that  baptism 
has  not  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  I  might 
write  a  volume  on  this  one  point ;  but  it  is  needless. 
He  who  will  not  be  convinced  by  the  five  facts  already 
presented,  would  not  be  convinced  "though  one 
should  rise  from  the  dead." 

The  Scripture  argument  on  infant  baptism  is  now 
closed.  I  have  examined  the  supposed  New  Testa- 
ment claim  of  infants  to  baptism,  and  also  the  Old 
Testament  claim,  and  can  perceive  no  mark  of 
validity  in  either.     My  readers  will,  therefore,  allow 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  63 

me  to  indorse  what  the  North  British  Review,  the 
Organ  of  the  Free  (Presbyterian)  Church  of  Scot- 
land says,   in  its  August   No.,    1852 — "Scripture 

KNOWS  NOTHING  OF  THE  BAPTISM  OF  INFANTS." 

From  the  word  of  God,  Pedobaptists  go  to  Church 
History  and  seek  ''aid  and  comfort"  from  its 
records.  What  does  Church  History  say  of  infant 
baptism  ?  Much,  I  admit,  but  there  is  no  proof  that 
it  was  practiced  before  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century.  The  proof  is,  by  no  means,  conclusive  that 
it  was  practiced  before  the  third  century.  This  the 
reader  will  see  as  I  proceed.  I  quote  from  Dr. 
Wall,  of  the  Church  of  England,  w^hose  "History  of 
Infant  Baptism"  is  in  high  repute  wherever  the 
English  language  is  spoken.  Referring  to  the  well- 
known  passage  in  Ireneeus,  he  says:  "Since  this  fs 
the  first  mention  that  we  have  met  with  of  infants 
baptized,  it  is  worth  the  while  to  look  back,  and  con- 
sider how  near  this  man  was  to  the  apostles'  time," 
Irenaeus,  according  to  Dr.  Wall's  chronology,  lived 
about  the  year  167.  It  is  well  to  give  the  disputed 
passage.  Here  it  is  :  "  For  he  [Christ]  came  to  save 
all  persons  by  himself:  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are 
regenerated  unto  God ;  infants,  and  little  ones,  and 
children,  and  youths,  and  elder  persons.  Therefore 
he  went  through  every  age  ;  for  infants  being  made 
an  infant,  sanctifying  infants,"  etc.  It  is  needless  to 
quote  farther  ;  for  the  controversy  in  reference  to 
this  passage  is  about  the  meaning  of  the  term  regen- 


64  THREE    REASONS, 

erated.  It  is  renascor  in  the  original.  This  word 
signifies  to  regenerate,  and  the  advocates  of  infant 
baptism  affirm  that  by  regeneration,  Ireneeus  meant 
baptism.  This  is  what  Dr.  Wall  terms  the  "first 
mention,"  etc.  There  is  one  objection  fatal  to  the 
Pedobaptist  interpretation  of  the  language  of  Ire- 
nseus.  It  makes  Jesus  Christ  the  administrator  of 
baptism — who  "by  him  are  regenerated,"  etc.  It 
cannot  possibly  be  proved  that  there  is  an  allusion  to 
baptism  in  this  celebrated  passage.  The  learned 
Winer,  speaking  of  infant  baptism  says,  "  Ireneeus 
does  not  mention  it  as  has  been  supposed."* 

Dr.  Doddridge  says:  "We  have  only  a  Latin 
translation  of  this  work ;  and  some  critics  have  sup- 
posed this  passage  spurious  ;  or,  allowing  it  to  be 
genuine,  it  will  not  be  granted  that  to  he  regenerate, 
always  in  his  writings,  signifies  baptized.'^\ 

Pedobaptists  must  deeply  feel  their  need  of  some- 
thing to  sustain  their  practice  when  they  attempt  to 
extort  from  Irenaeus  testimony  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism.  He  says  nothing  about  baptism  in  connec- 
tion with  infants. 

Tertullian,  who  lived  about  the  year  200,  is 
generally  referred  to  by  Pedobaptists,  as  the  first 
opponent  of  infant  baptism,  but  they  argue  that  his 
opposiLion  proves  the  existence  of  the  practice.     If 

*  Christian  Review,  Vol.  3,  p.  213. 
t  Miscellaneous  Works,  p.  493. 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  65 

Tertullian  alludes  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  it  is 
strange  that  his  opposition  to  it  can  avail  those  whose 
views  are  in  direct  conflict  with  his.  I  insist,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Tertullian 
refers  to  the  baptism  of  infants  at  all.  The  term 
which  he  uses,  and  which  Dr.  Wall  translates  "little 
children,"  is  "jjarvulos."  Irenseus  speaks  of  ''in- 
fantes, 2^arvulos,"  etc.  He  makes  a  distinction  be- 
tween "infantes"  and  "  parvulos."  If  Tertullian 
uses  the  latter  term  as  Irenseus  did,  he  does  not  re- 
fer to  the  baptism  of  unconscious  infants,  but  to  the 
baptism  of  "little  children."  Whether  these  "little 
children  "  were  capable  of  excercising  faith  in  Christ, 
is  a  question  into  which  I  shall  not  enter.  The  only- 
fact  which  concerns  me  is  that  Tertullian  advised  a 
delay  of  the  baptism  of  liitle  children. 

Having  now  come  down  to  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  may  I  not  say  that  if  infant  baptism 
rests  for  its  support  on  the  practice  of  the  first  and 
the  second  century,  it  rests  on  a  foundation  of  sand  ? 
If  any  man  alludes  to  it  during  the  first  two  hundred 
years,  Tertullian  is  that  man,  and  Pedobaptists  con- 
cede that  he  opposed  it. 

From  Tertullian,  Dr.  Wall  comes  to  Origen,  whom 
he  represents  as  living  A.  D.  210.  Origen  wrote  in 
Greek,  and  his  works  in  the  original  were  chiefly 
lost.  Hence  Dr.  Wall  uses  the  following  language : 
"But  concerning  the  authenticalness  of  'em  there 
does  need  somethini?  to  be  said.     For  the  Greek — 


€0  THREE    REASONS, 

which  is  the  original — of  all  Origen's  Works  being 
lost,  except  a  very  feAv,  there  remains  only  the  Latin 
translations  of  'em.  And  when  these  Translations 
were  collected  together,  a  great  many  spurious  ones 
were  added  and  mixt  with  'em,  and  went  under 
Origen's  name.  But  upon  the  renewal  of  Learning, 
the  critics  quickly  smelt  'em  out,  and  admited  none 
for  his,  but  such  as  appeared  to  have  been  done  into 
Latin  either  by  St.  Hierom  or  else  by  Rvfinus.     *   * 

*  *  *  *.  But  these  two  men  used  several  methods 
in  translating.  For,  whereas  Origen's  Books  con- 
tained in  them  several  expressions  not  consistent  with 
the  Faith  in  some  points,  St.  Hierom  changed  noth- 
ing, but  expressesed  everything  as  it  was  in  the 
original,  as  he  owns  himself:  but  Rvfinus  altered  or 
left  out  anything  that  he  thought  not  orthodox.     *   * 

*  *  -^  *  Whereas  now  in  these  Translations  of 
Rufinus,  the  reader  is  uncertain  (as  Erasmus  angrily 
says)  lohether  he  read  Origen  or  Rufinus."  History 
of  Infant  Baptism,  chap.  5.  Rufinus,  Dr.  Wall  con- 
cedes, translated  Origen's  Homilies  on  Leviticus, 
and  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
Here  we  have  Origen's  strong  testimony,  as  is  sup- 
posed, in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  In  his  eighth 
Homily  he  is  represented  as  saying,  **  Infants  also 
are  hy  the  usage  of  the  church  baptized."  In  his 
Commentary  on  Romans,  this  language  is  attributed 
to  him  :  "The  church  had  from  the  apostles  a  tradi- 
tion  [or  order]    to  give  baptism    even  to  infants.** 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  67 

This  is  Dr.  Wall's  translation.  He  was  very  anxious 
to  translate  the  Latin  word  traditlo,  order.  His  con- 
science, however,  would  not  allow  him  to  do  so. 
He  therefore  put  the  word  order  in  brackets.  Let  it 
not  be  forgotten  that  the  translation  of  these  portions 
of  Origen's  Works,  was  made  from  Greek  into  Latin, 
by  Rufinus,  who  "altered  or  left  out  anything  that 
he  thought  not  orthodox."  Who  knows,  therefore, 
who  can  ever  know,  whether  Origen  wrote  what  is 
here  attributed  to  him?  What  alterations  were 
made  in  his  writings  ?  Such  as  Rufinus,  in  his 
orthodoxy,  thought  proper.  What  things  were  "left 
out?"  Only  those  that  Rufinus  thought  ought  to  be 
left  out !  Erasmus,  a  prodigy  of  learning  in  his  day, 
was  uncertain  whether  he  "read  Origen  or  Rufinus." 
But  if  Origen  did  say  what  Rufinus  represents  him 
as  saying,  what  does  it  amount  to?  Absolutely 
nothing  with  those  who  recognize  the  word  of  God 
as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  "  usage 
of  the  church,"  and  "a  tradition  from  the  apostles" 
are  referred  to  as  authority  for  infant  baptism.  There 
is  no  appeal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Who  but  a 
Romanist  is  willing  to  practice  infant  baptism  as  a 
tradition,  and  not  a  divine  ordinance?  Origen's 
testimony  is  valuable  to  a  Papist — worthless  to  a 
Protestant. 

Leaving  the  "uncertain"  writings  of  Origen,  Dr. 
Wall  conducts  us  into  the  Council  of  Carthage,  A.  D, 
253.    This  council  was  composed  of  sixty-six  Bishops, 


68  THREE  REASONS, 

or  Pastors,  and  Cyprian  presided  over  it.  One  of 
the  questions  submitted  to  its  consideration  was 
whether  a  child  should  be  baptized  before  it  was 
eight  days  old  ?  Fidus,  who  presented  the  question, 
was  in  the  negative,  and  rightly  too,  if  the  law  of  cir- 
cumcision was  to  regulate  the  matter.  The  very  fact 
that  such  a  question  was  sent  to  the  council,  shows 
that  infant  baptism  was  comparatively  a  new  thing. 
If  it  had  been  practiced  from  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
does  not  every  sane  man  believe  that  the  matter 
would  have  been  settled  before  A.  D.  253,  whether 
infants  should  or  should  not  be  baptized  before  the 
eighth  day  ?  The  council  decided  against  the  delay 
of  baptism  to  the  eighth  day,  assigning  this  weighty 
reason  :  *' As  far  as  in  us  hes,  no  soul,  if  possible,  is 
to  be  lost."  Here  it  will  be  seen  that  the  necessity 
of  baptism,  in  order  to  salvation,  is  recognized.  In 
this  supposed  necessity,  infant  baptism  doubtless  had 
its  origin.  This  will  be  clear  when  I  present  the 
testimony  of  the  great  Neander.  This  stupid  council 
of  Carthage  attempted  to  justify  infant  baptism  by 
reference  to  the  fact  that  when  the  son  of  the  Shuna- 
mite  widow  (mentioned  in  2  Kings,  chap,  iv,)  died, 
the  prophet  Elisha  so  stretched  himself  on  the  child 
as  to  apply  his  face  to  the  child's  face,  his  feet  to  the 
child's  feet,  etc.  By  this,  said  the  council,  "  spiritual 
equality  is  intimated" — that  is,  a  child  is  spiritually 
equal  to  a  grown  person !  A  conclusive  reason  for 
infant  baptism,  truly  !     The  members  of  this  council 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST,  69 

were  so  ignorant  of  the  very  Scriptures  to  which  they 
referred,  that  they  seem  not  to  have  known  that  it  is 
said,  "  and  when  the  child  was  grown''  etc.  This 
was  said  before  the  child's  death  and  miraculous  res- 
toration to  life.  The  cause  of  infant  baptism  must  be 
desperate  when  the  decision  of  such  a  council  is  in- 
voked to  sustain  it. 

Dr.  Wall  refers  to  other  **  christian  fathers,"  as 
they  are  termed,  a^d  quotes  largely  from  Augustine, 
who  hved  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  and  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  He  died  A.  D.  430. 
Baptists  do  not  deny  that  infants  were  baptized  from 
the  days  of  Cyprian.  They  believe,  however,  that 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  till  now,  God  has  had 
a  people  in  the  world  who  have  protested  against  in- 
fant baptism  as  a  human  tradition.  They  consider 
the  woman  mentioned  in  Revelations  xii,  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Church  of  Christ.  She  fled  into  the 
wilderness,  etc.  The  corrupt  organization  which  de- 
veloped the  deformities  and  atrocities  of  the  Romish 
hierarchy  is  not,  in  the  estimation  of  Baptists,  any 
part  of  the  Christian  Church.  Ecclesiastical  histori- 
ans, generally,  use  the  term  ** church,"  to  denote 
that  organization.  And  they  say  truly,  the  "church" 
practiced  infant  baptism.  Augustine  speaks  of  the 
whole  church — "universa  ecclesia" — as  favoring  in- 
fant baptism.  No  doubt  what  he  called  the  "  church" 
did.  But  was  it  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  Baptists 
say  it  was  not.     Before  I  dismiss  Augustine,  it  is 


70  TRREE    REASONS, 

proper  to  say  that  he  refers  to  infant  baptism  as  an 
"apostolic  tradition."  "  Apostolica  trad  Itlo,"  is  the 
phrase  he  employs.  He  meant,  doubtless,  that  it  was 
handed  down  from  the  apostles  by  tradition,  that  in- 
fants were  to  be  baptized.  And  this  implies  the 
silence  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject.  No 
one  would  say  that  it  was  handed  down  by  tradition, 
that  believers  were  to  be  baptized.  Why  ?  Because 
the  baptism  of  believers  is  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  hence  tradition  in  regard  to  it  is  absolutely 
precluded.  Not  so  in  reference  to  infant  baptism. 
Here  there  is  room  for  tradition,  because  the  Scrip- 
tures are  silent.  Romanists  and  Protestants  believe 
that  a  thing  authorized  by  tradition  is  not  authorized 
by  the  word  of  God.  Romanists,  however,  take  the 
**  traditions  of  the  church,"  in  connection  with 
the  word  of  God,  to  constitute  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  while  Protestants  professedly  repudiate 
"traditions,"  and  yet  indorse  a  most  mischievous 
"tradition,"  in  the  baptism  of  infants.  Let  any 
sober-minded  man  say  whether  Augustine  would 
have  expressed  himself  as  he  has  done  if  he  had  be- 
lieved that  the  New  Testament  authorized  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  And  nothing  but  New  Testament 
authority  will  ever  satisfy  Baptists,  It  is  the  greatest 
folly  to  talk  to  them  of  tradition. 

Dr.  Summers,  in  his  late  work  on  Baptism,  repre- 
sents Augustine  as  saying,  that  the  "  Catholic 
Church,"  and  every  "  sect"  and  "schism"  practice 


WHY  I  AM  A  BArTIST.  71 

infant  baptism,  and  hold  that  "baptized  infants  do 
obtain  the  remission  of  original  sin,  by  the  baptism 
of  Christ."  There  must  be  some  mistake  about  this, 
because  it  not  only  conflicts  with  historical  facts,  but 
stjultifies  the  Council  of  Mela,  in  Numidia,  A.  D.  416 
— a  council  over  which  Augustine  presided,  and 
which  decreed  as  follows:  "Also,  it  is  the  pleasure  of 
the  bishops  to  order  that  whoever  denieth  that  infants 
newly  born  of  their  mothers,  are  to  be  baptized,  or 
saith  that  baptism  is  administered  for  the  remission  of 
their  own  sins,  but  not  on  account  of  original  sin,  de- 
rived from  Adam,  and  to  be  expiated  by  the  laver  of 
regeneration,  he  accursed.'"  Now,  if  the  **  Catholic 
Church,"  with  every  "  sect"  and  ** schism"  practiced 
infant  baptism,  against  whom  was  the  anathema  of 
the  Council  of  Mela  fulminated?  If  no  one  denied 
that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  the  Council  decreed 
a  superfluous  malediction,  not  more  creditable  to  the 
intellect  than  to  the  hearts  of  its  members.  There 
were  opposers  of  infant  baptism.  Hence,  the  curse 
denounced  with  so  much  bitterness,  and  carrying  with 
it  the  influence  of  Augustine's  mighty  name.  And 
here  it  may  be  said  that  the  advocates  of  infant  bap- 
tism have  often  evinced  a  persecuting  spirit.  It  will 
never  be  known  till  the  revelations  of  the.  last  day, 
what  multitudes  have  been  put  to  death  for  denying 
the  rio-ht  of  unconscious  infants  to  the  ordinance  of 

o 

baptism.  0  Babylon!  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the 
saints  and   the  martyrs   of    Jesus,    a  fearful   doom 


7^  THREE    REASONS, 

awaits  tliee.  During  the  dark  ages,  the  spirit  that 
prompted  Augustine  and  his  coadjutors  to  anathema- 
tize the  opposers  of  infant  baptism  prevailed,  and  be- 
came intensely  rancorous.  Could  the  martyred 
Paulicians,  Waldenses,  and  Albigenses  rise  from  the 
dead,  they  would  tell  a  tale  that  would  send  a  thrill 
of  horror  through  the  heart  of  humanity.  But  I 
must  not  enlarge. 

It  has  been  intimated  that  infant  baptism  had  its 
origin  in  the  supposed  necessity  of  baptism  to  salva- 
tion, and  I  have  promised  to  present  the  testimony  of 
the  celebrated  Neander  on  this  point.  He  says, 
**That  not  till  so  late  a  period  as  (at  least  certainly 
not  earlier  than)  Irenseus,  a  trace  of  infant  baptism 
appears,  and  that  it  first  became  recognized  as  an 
apostolic  tradition  in  the  course  of  the  third  century, 
is  evidence  rather  against  than  for  the  admission  of 
its  apostohc  origin  ;  especially  since,  in  the  spirit  of 
the  age  when  Christianity  appeared,  there  were 
many  elements  which  must  have  been  favorable  to 
the  introduction  of  infant  baptism, — the  same  ele- 
ments from  which  proceeded  the  notion  of  the  magical 
effects  of  outward  baptism,  the  notion  of  its  absolute 
necessity  for  salvation,  the  notion  which  gave  rise  to  the 
mythus  that  the  apostles  baptized  the  Old  Testament 
saints  in  Hades.  How  very  much  must  infant  bap- 
tism have  corresponded  with  such  a  tendency,  if  it 
had  been  favored  by  tradition  !"* 

*  Planting  and  Tnvining  of  the  Church,  p,  102. 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST,  73 

Dr.  Wall,  referring  lo  the  "ancient  Fathers," 
says  :  "They  diifered  concerning  the  future  state  of 
infants  dying  unbaptized  :  but  all  agreed  that  they 
missed  of  Heaven."* 

In  view  of  this  testimony  of  two  distinguished 
Pedobaptists,  who  does  not  see  that  infant  baptism 
originated  from  its  supposed  inseparable  relation  to 
salvation  ?  A  fundamental  misconception  of  the 
truth  of  the  gospel  gave  it  birth,  while  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  prolongs 
its  disastrous  existence.  The  "  Historical  Argu- 
ment" for  infant  baptism  affords  very  little  "  aid  and 
comfort"  to  Pedobaptists.  But  suppose  it  was  a 
thousand  times  stronger.  Suppose  every  writer  from 
the  death  of  the  last  apostle  had  expressed  himself 
in  favor  of  it;  even  then  it  would  be  nothing  less 
than  an  act  of  will-worship,  while  the  Scriptures  are 
silent  in  reference  to  it.  The  perplexing  question, 
"  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands  ?"  ought  to 
confound  its  advocates.  "The  Bible,  the  Bible 
alone,"  said  Chilbngworth,  "is  the  religion  of  Pro- 
testants." Arguments  from  antiquity,  to  be  avail- 
able, must  penetrate  the  antiquity  of  the  apostolic 
age,  and  rest  on  the  teachino-s  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.     All  other  arguments  are  worthless. 

before  dismissing  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  I 
must  present  a  few  of  the  many  objections  to  it. 
*  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  part  2,  chap.  6. 
7 


74  THREE  REASONS, 

1 .  A  decided  objection  to  it  is  that  its  advocates  can- 
not agree  why  it  should  be  practiced. 

How  conflicting,  liow  antagonistic  their  views! 
Roman  Catholics  baptize  infants  in  order  to  their 
salvation.  They  consider  baptism  essential  to  the 
salvation  of  adults  and  infants.  They  have  some- 
times shown  the  sincerity  of  their  belief  by  attempt- 
ing to  baptize  children  before  they  were  born.  If 
Episcopalians  believe  their  "  Prayer  Book,"  they 
baptize  infants  to  make  them  children  of  God  by  re- 
generation. Calvin,  as  may  be  seen  in  his  **  Life,  by 
Henry,"  vol.  1,  pp.  82,  83,  maintains  that  infants 
are  capable  of  exercising  faith,  and  that  their  bap- 
tism is  an  exemplification  of  believers'  baptism.  This 
seems  also  to  have  been  Luther's  opinion.  Wesley, 
in  his  "  Treatise  on  Baptism,"  says  :  "If  infants  are 
guilty  of  original  sin,  they  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism  :  seeing,  in  the  ordinary  way,  that  they  can- 
not be  saved,  unless  this  be  washed  away  in  bap- 
tism." The  "Directory"  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly, places  the  right  of  the  infants  of  believers  to 
baptism,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  ''federally 
holy.''  The  opinion  most  generally  entertained 
among  Pedobaptists,  probably  is,  that  infants  should 
be  baptized  to  bring  them  into  the  church.  But  Dr. 
Miller  insists  that  the  children  of  professing  Chris- 
tians are  born  members  of  the  church,  and  are  bap- 
tized because  they  are  members.     And  Dr.  Sum- 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST,  75 

mers  derives  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  from 
'*  their  personal  connection  with  the  second  Adam." 
These  are  a  specimen  of  the  reasons  urged  in  favor 
of  infant  baptism.  How  contradictory  !  How  an- 
tagonistic !  It  seems  that  infants  are  baptized  that 
they  may  be  saved — that  they  may  be  regenerated — 
because  they  have  faith — because  their  parents  are 
believers — because  they  are  involved  in  original 
sin — and  because  they  are  holy — because  they  ought 
to  be  brought  into  the  church — and  because  they  are 
in  the  church  by  virtue  of  their  birth — and  because 
of  their  **  personal  connection"  with  Christ,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  assumption  of  human  nature !  It 
would  certainly  be  well  for  the  various  tribes  of  Pe- 
dobaptists  to  call  a  general  council,  and  try  and  de- 
cide why  infants  should  be  baptized.  The  reasons 
in  favor  of  the  practice  are,  at  present,  so  contradic- 
tory and  so  destructive  of  one  another  that  it  must 
involve  the  advocates  of  the  system  in  great  per- 
plexity. Many,  though,  would  object  to  such  a 
council  because,  for  obvious  reasons,  the  Pope  of 
Rome  should  preside  over  it,  and  others  would  ob- 
ject because  it  would  probably  be  in  session  as  long  as 
the  council  of  Trent.  Still,  if  one  good  reason  could 
be  furnished  for  infant  baptism,  by  the  united  wis- 
dom of  Catholics  and  Protestants,  it  would  be  more 
satisfactory  than  all  the  reasons  which  are  now 
urged. 


76  THREE  REASONS, 

2.  A  second  oljectlon  to  infant  baptism  is  that  its 
tendency  is  to  unite  the  church  and  the  world. 

Jesus  Christ  evidently  designed  the  church  to  be 
the  light  of  the  world.  His  followers  are  not  of  the 
world,  but  are  chosen  out  of  the  world.  If  any- 
thing in  the  New  Testament  is  plain,  it  is  plain  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  intended  that  there  should  be  a  dis- 
tinct line  of  demarkation  between  the  church  and  the 
world.  I  need  not  argue  a  point  so  clear.  Now  the 
tendency  of  infant  baptism  is  to  unite  the  church  and 
the  Avorld,  and  obliterate  the  line  of  demarkation 
which  the  Savior  has  established.  Let  the  principles 
of  Pedobaptism  universally  prevail,  and  one  of  three 
things  will  inevitably  follow.  Either  there  will  be  no 
church — or  there  will  be  no  w^orld — or  there  will  be 
a  worldly  church.  The  universal  prevalence  of  Pe- 
dobaptist  sentiments  would  bring  all  *'born  of  the 
flesh"  into  the  church.  To  he  generated,  not  regen- 
erated, would  be  the  qualification  for  membership. 
The  unregenerate  members  would  be  in  a  large  ma- 
jority. The  world  would  absorb  the  church,  or,  to 
say  the  least,-  there  would  be  an  intensely  worldly 
church.  Is  this  not  true  of  the  national  churches  of 
Europe?  The  time  has  been,  whatever  may  be  the 
case  now,  when  in  England,  ''  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper"  was  a  qualification  for  holding  the 
civil  and  military  offices  of  the  kingdom.  Thus  a 
premium  was  offered  for  hypocrisy.     In  Germany, 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  77 

it  is  said,  that  women  cannot  be  licensed  as  prosti- 
tutes unless  they  are  members  of  the  State  Church, 
while  the  tax  they  pay  goes  into  the  treasury  from 
which  the  clergy  draw  their  salaries  !*  In  the 
United  States  of  America. there  are  so  many  coun- 
teracting influences  that  infant  baptism  cannot  fully 
develop  its  tendency  to  unite  the  church  and  the 
world.  Indeed,  in  some  respects,  Pedobaptists 
practically  repudiate  their  own  principles.  They 
do  not  treat  their  "baptized  children"  as  church- 
members.  If  they  did,  there  would  truly  be  a 
deplorable  state  of  things. 

3.  Another  objection  to  infant  haptism  is,  that  it 
cherishes  in  ^'bajyiized  children"  the  delusive  belief 
that  they  are  better  than  others — thcd  their  salvation  is 
more  hopeful. 

In  many  instances,  it  is  to  be  feared,  they  are  led 
to  consider  themselves  in  a  saved  state.  The  chil- 
dren of  Romanists  must  so  regard  themselves,  if 
they  attribute  to  baptism  the  efficacy  ascribed  to  it 
by  the  Papal  hierarchy.  If  the  children  of  Episco- 
palians believe  the  **  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  they 
must  grow  up  under  the  false  persuasion  that  in  bap- 
tism they  "  were  made  members  of  Christ,  children 
of  God,  and  inheritors  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven." 
If  the  children  of  Methodists  believe  the  ''Disci- 
pline," and  that  the  prayer  offered  at  their  baptism 

*  See  Dr  Maclay's  Letter  to  Dr.  Aydelotte. 


78  THREE  REASONS, 

was  heard,  they  must  recognize  themselves  as  bap- 
tized not  only  ''with  water,"  but  **with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  If  the  children  of  Presbyterians  believe 
the  "Westminster  Confession"  and  "Directory," 
they  look  upon  themselves  as  "  federally  holy  " — 
"in  covenant  with  God" — and  that  the  "covenant 
is  sealed"  by  their  baptism.  Will  not  all  these 
classes  of  children  consider  themselves  better  than 
others  ?  Will  they  not,  under  the  teaching  they  re- 
ceive, view  other  children  as  consigned  to  the  "  un- 
covenanted  mercies  of  God,"  while  they  occupy  a 
high  vantage  ground  ?  And  will  not  their  delusive 
belief  present  a  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  their 
salvation  ?  I  would  not  needlessly  give  offense,  but 
it  does  appear  to  me  that  there  is  no  rational  proba- 
bility of  the  salvation  of  Pedobaptist  children,  unless 
they  disbelieve  the  dogmas  inculcated  in  their  bap- 
tism. Will  the  children  of  Romanists  ever  be  saved 
while  they  regard  their  baptism  as  having  placed  them 
in  a  state  of  salvation  ?  Will  the  children  of  Epis- 
copalians become  the  "children  of  God"  while  they 
entertain  the  absurd  notion  that  they  were  made  his 
children  by  baptism  ?  Will  the  children  of  Method- 
ists be  regenerated  while  they  ignorantly  imagine 
that  they  have  been  baptized  "with  the  Holy 
Ghost?"  Will  the  children  of  Presbyterians  re- 
pent— acknowledge  their  guilt  and  condemnation  as 
sinners  before  God — while  they  lay  the  pernicious, 
though  "  flattering  unction  to  their  souls,"  that  they 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  79 

are  "federally  holy,"  and  "in  covenant  witli  God?" 
Alas  for  the  children  of  Pedobaptists  !  I  see  not 
how  their  salvation  comes  within  the  limits  of  possi- 
bility or  probability,  until  they  consider  the  teach- 
ings of  their  "Prayer  Books,"  "Disfeiplines"  and 
"  Confessions  of  Faith,"  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
as  absolutely  false.  They  must  take  the  first  step  in 
the  pursuit  of  salvation,  by  denying  the  truth  of  what 
they  have  been  taught  concerning  their  baptism.  It 
will  be  asked,  Are  not  thousands  of  the  children  of 
Pedobaptists  converted  to  God?  I  concede  it.  But 
why  is  it  so?  One  prominent  reason,  doubtless  is, 
that  on  the  part  of  their  ministers  and  parents,  there 
is  a  practical  repudiation  of  their  baptismal  theories. 
The  "baptized  children,"  whatever  the  baptismal 
formulas  may  say,  are  taught  that  they  are  sinners, 
unregenerate,  lost,  condemned,  and  exposed  to  the 
wrath  of  God,  for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  not 
"  in  covenant "  with  him.  Thanks  be  to  God,  that  the 
preaching  and  teaching  of  Pedobaptists  do  not  accord 
with  their  "  Confessions  of  Faith,"  so  far  as  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism  is  concerned.  The  dis- 
crepancy is  vital  to  the  welfare  of  their  offspring. 

4.  A  fourth  objection  to  infavi  baptism  is  that  ii  in- 
terferes with  the  independent  action  of  the  minds  of  those 
baptized  in  regard  to  baptism,  and  in  numberless  instances 
prevents  baptism  on  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ. 

Suppose,  when  "baptized  children"  grow  up  to  be 
men  and  women,  they  are  annoyed  with  doubts,  as  is 


80  THREE    REASONS, 

often  the  case,  in  reference  to  the  validity  of  their 
baptism.  They  feel  at  once  that  they  cannot  enter- 
tain these  doubts  without  virtually  calling  in  question 
the  propriety  of  what  their  parents  had  done  for 
them  in  their  infancy.  Filial  respect  and  reverence 
present  almost  insuperable  barriers  in  the  way  of  an 
impartial  investigation  of  the  subject.  The  question 
comes  up,  "Shall  we  reflect  on  the  wisdom  of  our 
parents,  by  declaring  their  act  null  and  void?"  If 
the  parents  are  dead  and  gone  to  heaven,  the  diffi- 
culty is  often  still  greater.  The  question  then  as- 
sumes this  form :  "  Shall  we  repudiate  what  our  now 
glorified  parents  did  for  us  when  they  *  dedicated  us 
to  God'  in  our  infancy?  **It  often  requires  a  great 
struggle  before  the  repudiation  is  resolved  on.  The 
man  is  not  to  be  reasoned  with  who  will  deny  that 
infant  baptism  interferes  with  the  independent,  un- 
biased action  of  the  mind  in  reference  to  baptism. 
And  then,  how  many  would  now  be  baptized  on  a 
profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  were  it  not  for  their 
infant  baptism  !  They  hesitate  to  say  tliat  the  "  in- 
fantile rite  "  was  worthless.  They  knoAv  that  great 
and  good  men  have  practiced  infant  baptism.  Their 
minds  are  perplexed.  They  wish  it  had  so  happened 
that  they  had  not  been  baptized  in  infancy.  Still  the 
sprinkling  of  the  baptismal  (!)  waters  upon  them  in 
babyhood  now  prevents  an  intelligent  immersion 
into  Christ  upon  a  profession  of  faith  in  his  name.  Is 
it  not  an  objection  to  infant  baptism  that  it  prevents 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  81 

SO  many  from  obeying  Christ,  and  even  fosters  a 
spirit  of  disobedience  ? 

5.  The  tendency  of  infant  hajytism  is  to  siqjplani 
helievers^  bajytism,  and  banish  it  from  the  world. 

This  is  the  last  objection  I  shall  urge,  not  because 
there  are  not  many  other  objections,  but  because 
the  limits  I  have  prescribed  to  myself  forbid  their 
presentation.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the 
Xew  Testament  enjoins  the  baptism  of  believers. 
The  universality  of  the  admission  precludes  the 
necessity  of  proof.  The  baptism  of  believers  is  a 
divine  ordinance.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
tAvo  divine  ordinances  antagonize  with  each  other? 
Pedobaptists  say  infant  baptism  is  a  divine  ordinance, 
and  they  are  slow  to  allow  its  antagonism  with  the 
baptism  of  believers.  But  the  antagonism  is  direct, 
positive.  The  tendency,  the  inevitable  tendency  of 
infant  baptism,  is  to  supplant  the  baptism  of  believers. 
.Y  supposition  will  make  this  plain  :  Let  it  be  sup- 
posed, then,  that  the  principles  of  Pedobaptists  pre- 
vail throughout  the  world.  All  parents  come  into 
the  church,  and  have  their  children  "  dedicated  to 
God  in  baptism."  If  this  supposition  were  realized, 
where  would  believers'  baptism  be?  It  would,  in  one 
generation,  be  banished  from  the  world.  An  ordi- 
nance established  by  Christ,  to  be  observed  to  the 
nnd  of  time,  would  be  abohshed.  There  would  be 
no  gospel  baptism  on  earth.  One  of  the  institutions 
of  the  Head  of  the  church  would  not  be  allowed  a 


82  THREE    REASONS, 

place  in  the  world  which  lie  made,  and  in  which  he 
laboix'd,  toiled,  suffered,  and  died  !  How  horrible  is 
this !  A  human  tradition  arraying  itself  in  deadly- 
hostility  to  an  ordinance  of  Heaven,  and  attempting, 
with  all  the  energy  of  desperation,  to  destroy  it,  and 
leave  no  memorial  of  its  existence  on  the  face  of  the 
globe !  If  there  were  no  other  objection  to  infant 
baptism  this  is  amply  sufficient  to  induce  all  who  love 
the  Savior,  and  revere  his  authority,  to  wage  against 
it  a  war  of  extermination. 

The  considerations  whicli  I  have  presented  satisfy 
me  that  infant  baptism  belongs  to  the  "  traditions  of 
men."  There  is  no  authority  for  it  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  there  is  none  in  the  Old.  The  argument 
from  Church  History  amounts  to  nothing,  and  there 
are  very  decided  objections  to  the  practice.  /  am 
a  Bajiiist,  then,  because  Bajjtists  regard  the  huptlsm  of 
infants  as  unscriptural,  and  insist  on  the  baptism  of 
believers  in  Christ,  and  of  believers  alone. 

II.  I  AM  A  Baptist  because  Baptists  consider 

THE  IMMERSION  IN  WATER,  OF  A  BELIEVER,  ESSENTIAL 
TO  BAPTISM SO  ESSENTIAL  THAT  THERE  IS  NO  BAP- 
TISM WITHOUT    IT. 

While  the  term  baptize  does  not  decide  who  are  to 
be  baptized,  it  indicates  the  action  to  be  performed. 
That  action  Baptists  say,  with  strongest  emphasis,  is 
immersion.  In  maintaining  their  position,  tliey  con- 
fidently refer  to  the  following  facts  : 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  83 

1 .  Greek  lexicons  give,  hnmerse,  dip  or  plunge,  as  the 
primary/  and  ordinary  meaning  of  baptizo. 

Here  it  is  proper  to  state  tliat  haptizo  and  haptisma 
are,  in  King  James's  version  of  the  Scriptures,  angli- 
cized, but  not  translated.  This  is  invariably  true  of 
the  latter  term,  and  it  is  true  of  the  former  whenever 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  referred  to.  Baptismos 
is  used  four  times.  In  three  instances  it  has  no 
reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  is  trans- 
lated "washing,"  which  washing  was  evidently  the 
result  of  immersion.  In  the  other  instance  it  is  not 
translated,  but  anglicized.  BapAo  is  employed  in  the 
Greek  New  Testament  three  times,  and  emhapAo  three 
times.  Both  are  translated  *'dip"  in  the  common 
version.  There  is  no  more  difference  in  their  mean- 
ing than  there  is  between  the  term  "dip"  and  the 
phrase  "dip  in."  These  verbs  are  never  used  in 
connection  with  baptism  as  a  religious  ordinance. 
Baptizo  is  the  verb  invariably  employed.  I  have 
alluded  to  haptizo  and  haptisma  as  anglicized  words. 
By  this  it  is  only  meant  that  their  termination  is  made 
to  correspond  with  the  termination  of  English  words. 
In  baptizo  the  final  letter  is  changed  into  e,  and  in 
haptisma  the  last  letter  is  dropped  altogeth.er.  Tv 
make  this  matter  of  anglicism  perfectly  plain,  it  i>s 
only  necessary  to  say,  that  if  rantizo'\\^<\  been  sub- 
jected to  the  same  treatment  by  the  King's  trans- 
lators which  baptizo  received  at  their  hands,  we  would 
have  rantize,  in  the  New  Testament,  wherever  we  now 


84  THREE    REASONS, 

have  sprinkle.  King  James  virtually  forbade  the 
translation  of  baptize  and  haptiam.  This  has  been 
often  denied,  but  it  is  susceptible  of  conclusive  proof. 
The  King's  third  instruction  to  his  translators  reads 
thus  :  "  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as 
the  word  church  not  to  be  translated  cono-reo-ation." 
It  is  absurd  to  say  that  this  rule  had  exclusive  refer- 
ence to  the  term  ''church;"  for  this  term  is  mani- 
festly given  as  a  specimen  of  "old  ecclesiastic  words." 
And  why  should  plurality  of  idea  be  conveyed  by 
the  phrase  "ecclesiastical  words,"  if  the  rule  had 
respect  to  only, one  word?  The  question,  then,  in 
dispute  is  :  Are  baptism  and  bapitize  "old  ecclesias- 
tical words?"  They  certainly  were  words  when  the 
Bible  was  translated,  or  they  would  not  be  found  in 
it.  They  had  been  used  by  church  historians,  and 
by  writers  on  ecclesiastical  law,  and  were,  therefore, 
ecclesiastical.  And  they  had  been  in  use  a  long  time, 
and  were  consequently  old.  They  were  "  old  eccle- 
siastical words."  Such  words  the  King  commanded 
"to  be  kept" — "not  translated."  It  is  worthy  of 
remark,  too,  that  the  Bishop  of  London,  at  the  King's 
instance,  wrote  to  the  translators,  reminding  them 
that  his  Majesty  "wished  his  third  m-id  fourth  rule 
to  be  specially  observed."*  This  circumstance  must 
have  called  special  attention  to  the  rule  under  con- 
sideration.    In  view  of  these  facts,  it  may  surely  be 


»  Lewis's  History  of  Translations,  page  319. 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  85 

said  that  the  translators  knew  what  were  *'old  eccle- 
siastical words."  Let  their  testimony,  then,  be  ad- 
duced. In  their  "  Preface  to  the  Reader,"  they  say 
that  they  had,  *'on  the  one  side,  avoided  the  scru- 
pulosity of  the  Puritans,  who  left  the  old  ecclesiasti- 
cal words,  and  betook  them  to  other,  as  when  they 
put  washing  for  baptism,  and  congregation  for  church; 
and  on  the  other  hand  had  shunned  the  obscurity  of 
the  Papists,"  etc.  Is  not  this  enough?  Here  there 
is  not  only  a  contemporaneous  admission  that  ''bap- 
tism" was  included  in  the  old  ecclesiastical  words, 
but  this  admission  is  made  by  the  translators  them- 
selves— made  most  cheerfully — for  it  was  made  in 
condemnation  of  the  Puritans,  and  in  commendation 
of  themselves. 

My  position  is  certainly  established  by  the  fore- 
going considerations ;  but  to  fortify  it,  so  that  it  may 
forever  defy  the  assaults  of  polemic  ingenuity  and 
wrath,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  King's  fourth 
rule.  It  reads  thus:  ''When  any  word  hath  divers 
significations,  that  to  be  kept  which  hath  been  most 
commonly  used  by  the  most  eminent  Fathers,  being 
agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the  anal- 
ogy of  faith."  Suppose  I  Avere  to  admit,  for  argu- 
ment's sake,  what  many  Pedobaptists  contend  for, 
that  bajytizo  has  divers  significations — every  man  of 
intelligence  knows  that  from  the  days  of  the  apostles 
to  the  reign  of  King  James,  immerse  was  its  com- 
monly received  meaning.     Was  not  immersion  ordi- 


86  THREE  REASONS, 

narily  practiced  for  thirteen  hundred  years?  Dr. 
Whitb}^  Dr.  Wall,  Professor  Stwart,  and  I  know 
not  how  many  other  Pedobaptists  of  distmction, 
make  this  concession.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that 
haptizo  is  a  word  of  many  significations;  but  even  if 
it  were,  the  King's  translators,  if  they  had  rendered 
it  at' all,  would  have  been  compelled  by  the  fourth  rule 
to  translate  it  immerse ;  for  it  was  most  commonly 
used  in  this  sense  by  the  most  eminent  Fathers.  But 
it  will  be  perceived  that  the  King's  third  rule  renders 
inoperative  his  fourth,  so  far  as  old  ecclesiastical 
words  are  concerned.  Whether  such  words  have 
one  meaning,  or  a  thousand  meanings,  they  are  "to 
be  kept — not  translated."  The  translators  Avere  not 
at  liberty  to  refer  to  the  signification  immemorially 
attached  by  the  Greeks  to  haptizo — a  signification  which 
received  the  cordial  indorsement  of  ''the  most  eminent 
Fathers."  They  might  have  examined  the  indorse- 
ment if  the  royal  decree  had  not  said,  ''hitherto,  hut 
no  farther — the  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept." 
The  fact  that  haptizo  is  an  anglicized,  and  not  a 
translated  word,  makes  an  appeal  to  Greek  lexicons 
necessary  in  ascertaining  its  meaning.  Lexicoiis 
indeed  do  not  constitute  the  ultimate  authority,  but 
I  first  avail  myself  of  their  testimony.  I  have  made 
it  a  point  to  examine  all  the  lexicons  I  have  seen 
(and  they  have  been  many)  in  reference  to  the  sig- 
nification of  haptizo.  There  is  a  remarkable  unanim- 
ity among  them  in  representing  immerse,  or  its  equiv- 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  87 

alent,  as  the  primary. and  ordinary  meaning  of  tlio 
word.  According  to  lexicographers,  it  is  a  word  of 
definite  import,  as  much  so  as  any  other.  It  is  as 
specific  as  rantlzo,  and  it  might  be  argued  just  as 
plausibly  that  rantlzo  means  to  immerse,  as  that  laptizo 
means  to  sprinkle.  I  have  seen  no  lexicon  that  gives 
sprinkle  as  a  meaning  of  baptizOy  and  but  one  that 
makes  *' to  pour  upon"  one  of  its  significations.  In 
Liddell  &  Scott's  Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  edited 
by  Mr.  Drisler,  of  New  York,  "with  corrections  and 
additions,"  "to  pour  upon"  is  given  as  the  seventh 
meaning  of  haptizo.  It  is  a  significant  fact,  however, 
that  while  passages  in  classic  Greek  authors  are 
referred  to  as  illustrative  of  the  ordinary  meaning  of 
the  word,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  passage  that 
sustains  the  unscholarly  definition,  "to  pour  upon." 
There  is  another  thing  which  it  is  painful  to  relate. 
It  is  stated — and  so  far  as  I  know  it  has  not  been 
denied — that  in  the  English  edition  of  Liddell  & 
Scott,  "to  pour  upon,"  is  not  to  be  found  as  a  mean- 
ing of  laptizo.*  Mr.  Drisler,  it  seems,  anxious  to 
aid  the  cause  of  Pedobaptists,  has,  on  his  own 
authority,  represented  haptizo  as  signifying  "to  pour 
upon."  He  must  be  a  man  of  nerve  !  He  is  surely 
the  incarnation  of  temerity!  He  is  obnoxious  to  the 
charge  of  literary  forgery!  He  represents  Liddell  & 
Scott  as  saying  what  they  have  not  said.     He  de- 

»  See  Western  Baptist  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  437,  438. 


88  THREE    REASONS,  ' 

serves  the  contempt  of  the  literary  world,  and  the 
indignant  hissings  of  all  the  truth-loving  portion  of 
mankind.  When  the  unpardonable  liberty  taken  by 
Mr.  Drisler  was  made  the  subject  of  newspaper  anim- 
adversion in  the  year  1848,  it  was  intimated — whether 
at  his  instance  I  know  not — that  in  the  next  edition 
of  the  lexicon,  the  interpolated  definition,  ''  to  pour 
upon,"  would  be  expunged.  This,  however,  has  not 
been  done;  for  in  an  edition  that  bears  date  1850, 
the  apocryphal  phrase  is  to  be  found.  So  much  for 
this  explanation,  which  Mr.  Drisler's  want  of  con- 
-scientiousness  has  rendered  necessary.  I  now  repeat 
that  there  is  among  Greek  Lexicons  a  perfect  concur-  i 
rence  in  assigning  immerse  or  its  equivalent  as  the 
ordinary  meaning  of  haptizo.  This  ought  to  settle 
the  baptismal  controversy.  For  what  says  Black- 
stone,  who  is  almost  the  idol  of  the  legal  profession  ? 
"Words  are  generally  to  be  understood  in  their  usual 
and  most  known  signification ;  not  so  much  regarding 
the  propriety  of  grammar,  as  their  general  and  'popu- 
lar use.'"^  Immerse  was  the  "usual  and  most  known 
signification"  of  haptizo,  among  the  Greeks.  It  was 
its  "  general  and  popular  use,"  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  proper  place. 

To  return  to  the  argument  derived  from  lexicons : 
All  English  dictionaries  give  immerse  or  its  equiv- 
alent  as   the  ordinary  meaning  of  dip.     It  would, 

*  Chitty's  Blackstone,  Vol.  I,  page  59. 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  89 

therefore,  be  very  unreasonable  to  deny  that  dip  ordi- 
narily means  to  immerse.     Greek  lexicons  give  im- 
merse as  the  ordinary  meaning  of  bapiizo.     Is  it  not, 
then,  just  as  unreasonable  to  deny  that  haptizo  ordi- 
narily means  immerse  as  it  would  be  to  deny  that  dip 
has  this  signification?     Indeed,  there  is  no  argument 
employed  by  Pedobaptists  to  divest  haptlzo  of  its  usual 
meaning,  which  may  not  be  as  plausibly  employed  to 
divest   dip  of   its   ordinary    import.     The   truth   is, 
though  dip  is  a  definite  and  specific  term,  haptlzo  is 
more   so.     We   speak  of  **  the  dip  of  the  magnetic 
needle,"  and  ''the  dip  of  a  stratum,  in  geology." 
Pope  speaks  of  ''dipinng  into  a  volume  of  history." 
And  in  some   places  there  is  a  practice  which,  the 
ladies  call  "dipping  snufF."     If  Pedobaptists  could 
find  hapiizo  used  in  such  connections  there  would  be 
rejoicing  from  Dan  to  Beersheba.     They  would  aim 
to  extract  sprinkle,  pour,  and  I  know  not  what  else, 
from  such  uses  of  the  word.     The  man  who  would 
attempt  to  prove  that  dip  means  sprinkle  and  pour, 
would  be  laughed  at ;  but  he   could  make  a  more 
plausible  and  respectable  efibrt  in  adducing  his  proof 
than  if  he  were  to  attempt  to  prove  the  same  thing 
in  reference  to  haptizo.     Let  us  see :   Such   a  man 
might  say,  Johnson  and  Webster,  in  their  large  Dic- 
tionaries, f-ive  "moisten"  and  "wet,"  as  meanino-s 
of  dip,  and  refer  to  Milton  as  authority,  wlio  uses  the- 
language  which  follows:   "A  cold  shuddering  dew 
dips  me  all  o'er." 


90  TRREE    REASONS, 

Talking  with  himself,  such  a  reasoner  might  say, 
**It  is  a  fixed  fact  that  dip  means  to  *  moisten'  and 
*  wet.'  Who  will  dispute  what  Johnson  and  Webster 
say,  sustained,  as  they  are,  by  the  *  Prince  of  British 
poets  ?'  Very  well.  Dip  means  to  moisten  and  wet. 
Everybody  knows  that  a  thing  can  be  moistened  or 
made  wet  by  having  water  poured  or  sprinkled  on 
it?  Therefore  dip  means  to  pour  and  sprinkle !1" 
Now  I  affirm  that  this  argument  is  more  plausible 
than  any  I  ever  heard  from  a  Pedobaptist  minister  to  • 
prove  that  haptizo  means  pour  and  sprinkle.  And 
yet  who  does  not  see  that  it  is  replete  with  sophistry? 
It  assumes  as  true  the  obvious  fallacy,  that  if  a  pro- 
cess can  be  accomplished  in  two  different  ways,  the 
two  verbs  employed  to  denote  those  two  ways  mean 
the  same  thing.  An  object  may  be  moistened  by 
being  dipped  in  water,  but  moisten  and  dip  are  not 
synonymous.  The  same  object  may  be  moistened  by 
having  water  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  it,  but  neither 
moisten  and  sprinkle,  nor  moisten  and  pour,  are 
identical  in  import.  And  though  the  moistening  may 
result  from  the  dipping,  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  the 
three  acts  are  clearly  distinguishable,  and  definite 
terms  are  used  to  express  them.  It  is  proper  to  say 
of  the  Greek  Lexicons  to  which  I  have  referred,  that 
they  were  all  made  by  men  who  had  no  partialities 
for  Baptists.  A  regard  for  truth,  therefore,  and  no 
desire  to  give  currency  to  the  practice  of  immersion, 
elicited  from  them  the  definition  they  have  given  of 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.-  91 

baptizo.  Baptists  may  well  felicitate  themselves  that 
their  opponents  bear  strong  testimony  in  their  favor  ; 
for  I  proceed  to  say, 

2.  That  not  only  Lexicographers,  but  distinguished 
Pedobaptist  scholars  and  theologians,  admit  that  bap- 
tizo means  to  immerse. 

Here  I  shall  probably  be  told  that  it  is  unfair  to 
take  advantage  of  Pedobaptist  concessions.  I  insist 
that  there  is  nothing  unfair  in  such  a  course.  No 
one  can  maintain  that  there  is  without  implicating  the 
x\postle  Paul ;  for  in  his  triumphant  argument  on 
"Mars  Hill,"  he  availed  himself  of  the  declaration 
of  certain  Greek  poets — recognized  the  truth  of  the 
declaration,  but  did  not  attempt  to  prove  it.  I  shall 
aim  to  do  nothing  that  is  unjustified  by  the  example 
of  Paul.  Pedobaptist  concessions  are  of  great  value; 
for  it  may  be  said,  in  the  language  of  another :  "  This 
testimony  of  theirs,  to  me,  is  worth  a  thousand  others; 
seeing  it  comes  from  such  as,  in  my  opinion,  are  evi- 
dently interested  to  speak  quite  otherwise J^  I  ask  the 
reader's  earnest  attention  to  the  followinof  extracts : 

T  begin  with  John  Calvin,  a  learned  Presbyterian, 
who  lived  three  hundred  years  ago.  He  was  very 
decided  in  his  opposition  to  Baptists,  or  "Anabap- 
tists,^^ as  he  contemptuously  called  them.  He  wrote 
in  Latin,  and  I  avail  myself  of  Pedobaptist  trans- 
lations of  the  original. 

In  his  Institutes,  Book  IV,  chapter  15,  paragraph 
19,  he  expresses  himself  thus:    (I  adopt  Professor 


92  THREE  REASONS, 

Stuart's  translation:)  "It  is  of  no  consequence  at  all 
(minimum  refert)  whether  tlie  person  baptized  is 
totally  immersed,  or  whether  he  is  merely  sprinkled 
by  an  affusion  of  water.  This  should  be  a  matter 
of  choice  to  the  churches  in  different  regions;  aUhough 
the  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse,  and  the  rite  of 
immersion  was  practiced  by  the  ancient  church." 
This  translation  might  have  been  made  stronger. 
Professor  S.  might  have  said,  "the  word  baptize" 
itself,  or  the  very  "word  baptize,"  etc.;  for  the  origi- 
nal is  "ipsum  haptizandi  verhum,^*  etc.  So,  also,  as 
Calvin  uses  the  word  ''constat''  as  an  impersonal 
verb,  the  translation  should  be,  "it  is  evident,"  or 
"certain  that  the  rite  of  immersion,"  etc. 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  a  distinguished  Presby- 
terian of  Scotland,  in  his  "  Notes  "  on  Matthew,  iii, 
2,  says,  "The  word  haptlzein,''  (infinitive  mode, 
present  tense,  of  haptizo,)  "both  in  sacred  authors, 
and  in  classical,  signifies,  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  im- 
merse, and  was  rendered  by  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of 
the  Latin  fathers,  tlngere,  tlie  term  used  for  dying 
cloth,  which  was  by  immersion.  It  is  always  con- 
strued suitably  to  this  meaning." 

In  his  "  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology  and 
Pulpit  Eloquence,"  Lecture  x,.  he  expresses  himself 
thus  :  "  Anotlier  error  in  disputation,  which  is  by  far 
too  common,  is,  when  one  will  a.dmit  nothing  in  the 
plea  or  arguments  of  an  adversary  to  be  of  the 
smallest  wei^cht.     ******.     I  have  heard  a 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  93 

disputant  of  this  stamp,  in  dejiunce  of  etymology  and 
use,  maintain  that  the  word  rendered  in  the  New 
Testament  baptize,  means  more  properly  to  sprinkle 
than  to  plunge,  and,  m  dejiunce  of  all  antiquity,  that 
the  former  method  was  the  earliest,  and  for  many 
centuries,  the  most  general  practice  in  baptizing. 
One  who  argues  in  tliis  manner,  never  fails,  with 
persons  of  knowledge,  to  betray  the  cause  he  would 
defend ;  and  though,  with  respect  to  the  vulgar,  bold 
assertions  generally  succeed,  as  well  as  arguments, 
sometimes  better ;  yet  a  candid  mind  will  disdain  to 
take  the  help  of  a  falsehood,  even  in  support  of  the 
truth." 

Witsius,  "Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  Univer- 
sities of  Franeker,  Utrecht,  and  Ley  den,"  says  in  his 
work  on  the  "Covenants,"  "It  cannot  be  denied, 
but  the  native  signification  of  the  words,  haptein  and 
haptizein,  is  to  plunge  or  dipJ^     Chapter  on  Baptism. 

Professor  Stuart,  so  long  an  ornament  of  the  An- 
dover  Seminary,  Massachusetts,  in  his  work  on  the 
"Mode  of  Baptism,"  says  on  page  14,  " Jjupto  and 
baptize  mean  to  dip,  'plunge,  or  immerge,  into  any- 
thing liquid.  All  lexicographers  and  cridcs  of  any 
note  are  agreed  in  this.  My  proof  of  this  posiiion, 
then,  need  not  necessarily  be  protracted  ;  but  for  the 
sake  of  ample  confirmation,  I  must  b<'g  the  reader's 
patience,  while  I  lay  before  him,  as  briefly  as  may 
be,  the  results  of  an  investigation,  which  seems  to 
leave  no  room  for  doubt."     It  will  be  seen  that  Pro* 


94  THREE  REASONS, 

fessor  Stuart  fully  sustains  what  has  been  said  of 
Greek  Lexicons. 

I  now  quote  from  the  greatest  man,  as  I  think, 
that  ever  belonged  to  the  Presbyterian  denomination. 
No  one  will  question  his  scholarship.  I  refer  to  Dr. 
Chalmers.  In  his  Lectures  on  Romans,  he  says, 
Lecture  xxx,  on  chap,  vi,  3 — 7:  "The  original 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  is  immersion,  and 
though  we  regard  it  as  a  point  of  indifferency, 
whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be  performed  in 
this  way  or  by  sprinkling — yet  we  doubt  not,  that 
the  prevalent  style  of  the  administration  in  the 
apostle's  days,  was  by  an  actual  submerging  of  the 
whole  body  under  water.  We  advert  to  this,  fur  the 
purpose  of  throwing  light  on  the  analogy  that  is  in- 
stituted in  these  verses.  Jesus  Christ,  by  death, 
underwent  this  sort  of  baptism — even  immersion 
under  the  surface  of  the  ground,  whence  he  soon 
emerged  again  by  his  resurrection.  We,  by  being- 
baptized  into  his  death,  are  conceived  to  have  made 
a  similar  translation.'* 

But  why  proceed  farther  with  the  testimony  ot 
distinguished  Pedobaptist  scholars  and  theologians  ? 
What  I  have  adduced  is  surely  sufficient.  These 
witnesses  testify  that  laptizo  means  to  immerse  ;  nor 
do  they  say  that  it  means  to  sprinkle  and  pour.  Tru».' 
it  is,  that  Calvin  considered  it  a  matter  of  "  no  con- 
sequence "  as  to  immersion  or  sprinkling,  and  Chal- 
mers regarded  it  a  "point  of   indifferency;"    but 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  95 

they  are  both  clear  as  to  what  the  word  bajJtizo 
means.  This  is  all  I  want — their  testimony  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  Their  opinion  as  to  the 
admissibility  of  sprinkling,  I  reject ;  for  it  is  utterly 
gratuitous  and  absurd,  unless  haptizo  means  to 
sprinkle.  This  they  did  not  say,  and  could  not  say. 
I  hope  it  will  be  observed  that  I  make  a  distinction 
between  a  fact  and  an  opinion.  He  who,  acquainted 
with  the  U8US  loquendi  of  a  term,  testifies  that  it 
means  a  certain  thmg,  bears  witness  to  2k  fact:  but 
if  he  says  it  is  not  important  to  adhere  to  the  mean- 
ing established  by  the  U8us  loquendi,  he  expresses  an 
opinion. 

It  may  be  asked  why  those  Pedobaptist  scholars 
who  have  conceded  that  haptizo  means  to  immerse, 
have  not  become  practical  immersionists  ?  This  is  a 
question  difficult  to  answer.  That  they  ought  to 
have  shown  their  faith  by  their  works,  does  not  ad- 
mit a  doubt.  Some,  perhaps,  have  failed  to  do  so,  on 
account  of  the  strength  of  early  predilections — others 
have  not  felt  willing  to  disturb  their  denominational 
relations — and  others  still  have  had  a  horror  of  the 
charge  of  fickleness.  Probably,  however,  the  greater 
number,  like  Professor  Stuart,  have  persuaded  them- 
selves that  as  the  Christian  dispensation  is  eminently 
spiritual,  provided  the  heart  is  right,  it  is  a  matter  of 
but  little  moment  as  to  a  particular  observance  of 
**  external  rites."  Such  persons  seem  to  forget  that 
the  way  to  show  that  the  heart  is  right  with  God,  is 


96  THREE    REASONS, 

to  do  the  very  thing  lie  has  commanded.  The  lea- 
sons  suggested  for  the  failure  of  those  Pedobaptists 
who  make  such  concessions  as  have  been  referred  to, 
to  do  their  duty,  are,  I  acknowledge,  altogether  un- 
satisfactory. I  cannot  give  satisfactory  reasons:  I 
cannot  perform  impossibilities.  I  am  glad  it  is  not 
incumbent  on  me  to  present  adequate  reasons.  Those 
who  admit  that  Jesus  Christ  commanded  his  disciples 
to  be  immersed,  and,  at  the  same  time,  array  them- 
selves in  practical  opposition  to  immersion,  are  ac- 
countable to  him. 

3.  The  classical  usage  of  baptizo  establishes  the  posi- 
tion of  Baptists. 

I  have  said  that  Lexicons  are  not  the  ultimate  au- 
thority in  settling  the  meaning  of  words.  The  truth 
of  this  remark  can  be  readily  seen.  Lexicographers 
are  necessarily  dependent  on  the  sense  in  which 
words  are  used,  to  ascertain  their  meanino-.  But  it 
is  not  impossible  for  them  to  mistake  that  sense.  If 
they  do,  there  is  an  appeal  from  their  definitions  to 
the  usus  loquendi,  which  is  the  ultimate  authority. 
I  shall  now  show  how  classic  Greek  autliors  used  the 
word  baptizo — not  that  I  am  complaining  of  the 
Lexicons — but  that  I  may  show  that  the  usage  of  the 
word  fully  justifies  the  Lexicons  in  giving  immerse, 
or  its  equivalent,  as  its  ordinary  meaning.  It  is 
pleasant  to  go  back  to  the  ultimate  authority. 

Few  men  have  ever  examined  the  classic  import 
of  baptizo,  so  unweariedly,  and  so  extensively,  as  the 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  97 

late  Dr.  Carson ;  but  as  he  was  a  Baptist,  I  decline 
availing  myself  of  the  results  of  his  investigations. 
For  obvious  reasons,  I  prefer  that  Pedobaptists  shall 
say  what  is  the  classic  meaning  of  haptizo.  I  quote 
from  Professor  Stuart's  work  on  the  **  Mode  of  Bap- 
tism."    He  makes  extracts  from  the  followino:  Greek 

o 

authors  : 

Pindar,  -who  was  born  five  hundred  and  twenty 
years  before  Christ,  says,  ''As  when  a  net  is  cast  into 
the  sea,  the  cork  sivi7ns  above,  so  am  I  unplugged 
(^ahaptistos)  ;  on  w^hich  the  Greek  scholiast,  in  com- 
menting, says :  As  the  cork,  on  dunei,  does  not  sink, 
so  I  am  abajjtistos,  unplunged,  not  immersed.  The 
cork  remains  ahaptistos,  and  swims  on  the  surface  of 
the  sea,  being  of  a  nature  which  is  ahaptistos  ;  in  like 
manner  I  am  ahaptistos,'^  etc.  Pindar  was  describing 
the  utter  incompetency  of  his  enemies  to  plunge  him 
into  ruin.  It  is  only  necessary  to  say  to  the  English 
scholar,  that  the  letter  a,  (in  Greek,  Alpha,)  prefixed 
in  the  foregoing  extract  to  haptistos,  conveys  a  nega- 
tive idea.  Ahaptistos,  therefore,  means  unplunged, 
undipped,  or  unimmersed.  Unsprinkled  or  unpoured 
is  perfectly  out  of  the  question. 

Heraclides  Ponticus,  who  lived  about  three  hun- 
dred and  thirty-five  years  before  the  Christian  era, 
says,  '*  When  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red  hot  from  the 
fire,  and  plunged  in  the  water,  {iidati  haptizetai,)  the 
heat,  heing  quenched  hy  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  water , 


98  THREE    REASONS, 

ceases.'^     Baptizo  certainly  signifies  immerse,  in  this 
passage. 

Plutarch,  who  died  about  A.  D.  140,  refers  to  a 
Roipan  General  "  dipping  {baptisas)  his  hand  into 
blood,"  etc.  Again  he  says,  **  Plunge  (boptison) 
yourself  into  the  sea."  And  again,  **  Then  plunging 
ibaptbzbn)  himself  .into  the  Lake  Copias"  etc. 

'LuciAN,  who.  diedj^.  D.  180,  *^' represejits  Timon^ 
the  man-hater,  as  saying  :  If  a  winter's  fto'od  should 
carry  away  any  one,  and  he,  stretching  out  his  hands, 
should  beg  for  help,  I  would  press  down  the  head  of 
such  an  one  when  sinking,  [bap)tizonta,)  so  that  he 
coidd  not  rise  up  again" 

Hippocrates,  who  lived  about  430  years  before 
Christ,  says,  "■  Shall  I  not  laugh  at  the  man  who  sinks 
{baptisonta.)  his  ship  by  overloading  it,  and  then  com- 
plains of  the  sea  for  ingulfing  it  with  its  cargo?" 

Strabo,  the  celebrated  geographer,  who  died  A. 
D.  25,  a  very  short  time  before  John  the  Baptist  be- 
gan to  preach  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  "  speaking 
of  a  lake  near  Agrigentum,  says :  Things  that  else- 
where cannot  float,  do  not  sink  (^mee  baptizesthai)  in 
the  water  of  this  lake,  but  swim  in  the  manner  of 
wood."  Again:  ^^  If  one  shoots  an  arrow  into  the 
channel,  [of  a  certain  rivulet  in  Cappadocia,]  the 
force  of  the  water  resists  it  so  m.uch,  thai  it  will 
scarcely  plunge  in  (baptizesthai)."  Again:  '*  They 
[the  soldiers]  marched  a  whole  day  through  the  water, 


WHY   I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  09 

PLUNGED  IN  (^baptizomenon)  up  to  the  waist.''  Once 
more :  "  The  bitumen  Jioats  on  the  top  [of  the  Lake 
Sirbon]  because  of  the  nature  of  the  water y  which  ad- 
mits of  no  diving,  nor  can  any  one  who  enters  it, 
PLUNGE  IN,  (baptizesthai,)  but  is  borne  up.'' 

JosEPHus,  wlio  died  A.  D.  93,  aged  fifty-six,  and 
was,  therefore,  cotemporary  with  the  Apostles, 
"speaking  of  the  ship  in  which  Jonah  was,  says, 
mellontos  baptizesthai  too  skaj)hous,  the  ship  being  about 
to  sink."  He  also  uses  the  expression,  "  Our  ship 
being  immersed  or  sinking  (boptisthentos)  in  the  midst 
of  the  Adriatic."  Referring  to  the  youth  Aristobu- 
lus,  who  was  drowned  by  order  of  Herod,  he  says: 
'*  The  boy  was  sent  to  Jericho,  and  there,  agreeably 
to  command,  being  immersed  in  a  i^ond,  {baptizcmie- 
nos  en  Icohanbethra,)  he  perished."  Again:  "As 
they  [the  sailors]  swum  aioay  from  a  sinking  ship 
{baptizomenees  neos)."  Once  more:  "The  wave  be- 
ing raised  verg  high,  overwhelmed  or  immerged 
them  [ebaptise). 

Aristotle,  w^ho  died  332  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  "  speaks  of  a  saying  among  the  Phenicians, 
that  there  were  certain  places,  beyond  the  pillars  of 
Hercules,  which,  luhen  it  is  ebb-tide,  are  not  over- 
flowed [mee  baptizesthai). 

DiODORUs  Siculus  says  :  "  Most  of  the  land  ani- 
mals that  are  intercepted  by  the  river  [Nile]  perish, 
being  overwhelmed  (Sop^i^omewa)."     Again:  "The 


100  THREE    REASONS, 

river,  borne  along  by  a  more  violent  current,  over- 
whelmed (ehaptlze)  many." 

Plutarch  "  speaks  of  Galba,  as  ophleemasi  behap- 
tismenon,  overwhelmed  Avitli  debts.  He  also  uses 
the  expression  vjm  toon  pragmatoon  haptizomenous, 
OVERWHELMED  witk  buslness." 

The  reader,  by  referring  to  Stuart,  on  the  "Mode 
of  Baptism,"  pp.  14,  15,  16,  19,  20,  can  test  the 
accuracy  of  these  quotations  from  that  work.  It 
will  be  seen  that  I  have  used  the  Roman  instead  of 
the  Greek  letters.  I  have  done  this  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  a  large  majority  of  those  who  will  peruse 
these  pages. 

It  will  be  seen  that  immerse  is  the  classical  mean- 
ing of  bap)tlzo.  In  all  the  preceding  quotations,  it 
might  be  employed  with  propriety.  A  ^'sinking 
ship,"  for  example,  is  a  ship  about  to  be  immersed. 
Nor  is  it  any  abuse  of  language  to  say  that  places 
**  not  overflowed,"  are  not  immersed.  As  to  being 
immersed  in  business,  with  cares,  with  debts,  etc., 
the}'-  are  common  forms  of  expression.  I  solicit 
special  attention  to  the  fact,  that  of  the  Greek  au- 
thors referred  to,  some  lived  before  the  coming  of 
Christ — some  during  the  apostolic  age — and  some 
at  a  period  subsequent  to  that  age. 

Seven  hundred  years  intervened  between  the  birth 
of  Pindar  and  the  death  of  Lucian.  During  those 
seven  centuries,  usage  shows  that  baptizo  meant  to 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  101 

immerse.  Most  of  the  classic  Greek  writers  lived 
before  baptism  was  instituted,  and,  consequently, 
knew  nothino:  of  immersion,  as  a  relioious  ordinance. 
Those  who  lived  after  this  institution  cared  nothing 

o 

for  it.  There  was  no  controversy  as  to  the  meaning 
of  baptlzo,  during  the  classic  period  of  Grecian  his- 
tory. There  was  no  motive,  therefore,  that  could  so 
operate  on  Greek  writers  as  to  induce  them  to  use 
the  word  in  any  but  its  authorized  sense.  That  sense 
was  most  obviously  to  immerse.  Even  Dr.  Edward 
Beecher,  though  perfectly  infatuated  with  the  notion 
that  baptizo,  **in  its  religious  sense,"  means  to 
** purify,"  admits  that  in  classic  usage  it  signifies  to 
immerse.  He  says:  "  I  freely  admit  that  in  numer- 
ous cases  it  clearly  denotes  to  immerse — in  which 
case  an  agent  submerges  partially  or  totally  some 
person  or  thing.  Indeed,  this  is  so  notoriously  true, 
that  I  need  attempt  no  proof.  Innumerable  ex- 
amples are  at  hand."     Beecher  on  Baptism,  p.  9. 

No  man  who  has  any  reputation  to  lose,  as  a  Greek 
scholar,  will  deny  that  baptlzo,  at  the  introduction  of 
the  Christian  era,  meant  to  immerse,  and  that  usage 
had  fully  established  this  meaning.  Even  Dod- 
dridge and  Barnes  virtually  admit  this  is  its  mean- 
ing in  the  New  Testament,  when  used  as  descriptive 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  Hence  the  former  para- 
phrases, Luke,  xii,  50,  thus  :  "  But  I  have,  indeed, 
in  the  meantime,  a  most  dreadful  baptism  to  be  bap- 
tized with,  and  know  that  I  shall  shortly  be  bathed, 


102  THREE    REASONS, 

as  it  were,  in  blood,  and  "plimged  in  the  most  over- 
whelming distress,"  etc.  Family  Expositor,  p.  204. 
Barnes,  in  his  Notes  on  Matthew,  xx,  22,  comment- 
ing on  the  phrase,  "The  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with,"  represents  the  Savior  as  saying  to  his  dis- 
ciples, "Are  ye  able  to  snffer  y^\\\i  me — to  endure 
the  trials  and  'pains  which  shall  come  upon  you  and 
me,  in  endeavoring  to  build  up  my  kingdom  ?  Are 
you  able  to  he  plunged  deep  in  afflictions,  to  have 
sorrows  cover  you  like  watery  and  to  be  sunk  beneath 
calamities  as  Jloods,  in  the  work  of  religion  ?  Afflic- 
tions are  often  expressed  by  being  sunk  in  the  floods, 
Sind  plunged  in  the  dee])  waters."  These  passages  are 
well  explained,  but  they  cannot  be  explained  at  all, 
unless  baptism  means  immersion.  Baptizo  literally 
means  immerse ;  therefore,  in  its  figurative  applica- 
tion, it  is  used  to  denote  an  immersion  in  sorrow, 
suffering  and  affliction. 

But,  say  some,  though  hapiizo,  in  classic  Greek, 
means  to  immerse,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  to  be 
understood  in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament. 
They  discourse  learnedly  on  the  difference  between 
classic  and  sacred  Greek.  They  insist  that  baptizo 
has,  in  the  Scriptures,  a  theological  sense.  In  short, 
they  feel  quite  a  contempt  for  Ernesti's  "  Principles 
of  Interpretation."  They  forget  that  "when  God 
has  spoken  to  men,  he  has  spoken  in  the  language 
of  men,  for  he  has  spoken  by  men,  and  f??' 
men." 


WHY   I   AM    A   BAPTIST.  103 

For  the  special  benefit  of  these  ivise  critics,  I  quote 
from  the  ablest  Methodist  work  I  have  seen,  (Wat- 
son's Theological  Institutes,  Vol.  II,  p.  153).  The 
author  is  showing,  in  opposition  to  the  Socinian  view, 
that  the  apostles  employed  terms  in  reference  to  the 
death  of  Christ  which  convey  the  idea  of  expiation. 
He  says:  **The  use  to  be  made  of  this  in  the  argu- 
ment is,  that  as  the  apostles  found  the  very  terms 
they  used  with  reference  to  the  nature  and  efficacy 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  fixed  in  an  expiatory  signifi- 
cation among  the  Greeks,  they  could  not,  in  honesti/f 
use  them  in  a  distant  figurative  sense,  much  less  in  a 
contrary  one,  without  due  notice  of  their  having  in- 
vested them  with  a  new  import  being  given  to  their 
readers.  *****  In  like  manner,  the  Jews  had 
their  expiatory  sacrifices,  and  the  terms  and  phrases 
used  in  them  are,  in  like  manner,  employed  by  the 
apostles  to  characterize  the  death  of  their  Lord ;  and 
they  would  have  been  as  guilty  of  misleading  their 
Jewish  as  their  Gentile  readers,  had  they  employed 
them  in  a  new  sense,  and  without  vjarning,  which, 
unquestionably,  they  never  gave.''* 

Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  "Way  of  Life,'*  expresses  the 
same  sentiment.  To  all  this  I  cordially  subscribe. 
The  apostles  found  certain  terms  in  use  among  the 
people,  which  conveyed  the  idea  of  expiation.  They 
used  those  terms,  and  evidently  in  that  sense.  As 
honest  men,  they  could  not  do  otherwise,  without 
giving  information  of  the  fact.     So  reasons  Mr.  Wat- 


104  THREE   REASONS, 

son.  Very  well.  The  same  apostles  found  the  term 
haptizo  jSxed  in  its  meaning,  and  that  meaning  was  to 
immerse.  Could  they  then  **in  honesty"  employ  it 
to  denote  sprinkle  and  pour  without  notifying  their 
readers  of  the  fact?  Richard  Watson  being  judge, 
they  could  not.  "Unquestionably"  they  never'  inti- 
mated to  Jew  or  Gentile  that  they  used  the  word  in 
a  new  sense.  Now  I  insist  that  Methodists  ought 
either  to  admit  the  validity  of  this  argument  in  refer- 
ence to  laptizo,  or  reject  as  inconclusive  Watson's 
reasoning  against  Socinians.  It  is  to  be  remembered, 
however,  that  those  who  say  that  the  sacred  mean- 
ing of  haptizo  differs  from  its  classic  meaning,  must 
prove  it.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  them.  If  they 
say  it  means  sprinkle,  let  them  show  it.  If  they 
affirm  that  it  means  pour,  let  them  establish  this 
signification.  And  if  Dr.  Beecher  can  do  anything 
for  his  ''purification  theory,"  let  him  do  it.  Baptists 
occupy  a  position  which  commends  itself  to  every 
unprejudiced  mind.  They  say  that  haptizo,  among 
the  Greeks,  meant  to  immerse,  and  that  John  the 
Baptist,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  apostles,  used  it  just 
as  the  people  understood  it. 

I  think  it  has  now  been  shown  that  the  classical 
signification  of  haptizo  is  immerse,  and  that  it  is  per- 
fectly gratuitous  to  assert  that  its  Scriptural  differs 
from  its  classical  import. 

4.  The  design  of  baptism  furnishes  an  argument  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  I  am  establishing. 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  105 

It  represents  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Paul  says:  "Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death ;  that,  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For 
if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection."  Romans  vi,  3,  4,  5.  *'  Buried  with 
him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him, 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead."  Col.  ii,  12.  "The  like 
figure  whereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  also  now  save 
us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,) 
by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."   1  Peter  iii,  21. 

It  is  clear  from  these  passages  that  baptism  has  a 
commemorative  reference  to  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  The  two  ordinances  of  the  church 
symbolically  proclaim  the  three  great  facts  of  the 
gospel.  These  facts,  as  Paul  teaches,(l  Cor.xv3,4,) 
are  that  Christ  died,  was  buried,  and  rose  again. 
The  Lord's  supper  commemorates  the  first  fact.  All 
are  agreed  in  this  view.  At  the  sacramental  table 
the  disciples  of  Christ  are  solemnly  reminded  that 
their  Redeemer  submitted  to  the  agonies  of  death. 
They  weep  over  him  as  crucified — dead.  In  baptism 
they  see  him  buried  and  raised  again,  just  as  they 


106  THREE  REASONS, 

see  him  dead  in  the  sacred  supper.  Baptism  is, 
therefore,  a  symbolic  proclamation  of  two  of  the 
three  prominent  gospel  facts — the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ.  These  facts  are  infinitely  worthy 
of  commemoration,  and  there  is  no  evangelical  com- 
memoration of  them,  unless  the  ordinances  of  the 
church  are  observed  with  the  proper  design.  This 
by  the  way.  Baptism  also  expresses  in  emblem  the 
behever's  death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  to  newness 
of  life.  In  ''repentance  toward  God  and  faith  to- 
ward our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  there  is  a  spiritual 
death  to  sin,  and  a  spiritual  resurrection  to  newness 
of  life.  These  two  facts  are  emblematically  set  forth 
in  baptism.  Hence  the  absurdity  of  baptizing  any 
who  are  not  dead  to  sin.  We  are  baptized  into  the 
death  of  Christ.  We  profess  our  rehance  on  his 
death  for  salvation,  and  we  profess,  also,  that  as  he 
died  for  sin,  we  have  died  to  sin.  As  burial  is  a 
palpable  separation  of  the  dead  from  tjie  living,  so 
baptism  is  a  symbolic  separation  of  those  dead  to 
sin  from  those  living  in  sin.  And  as  a  resurrection 
from  the  dead  indicates  an  entrance  into  a  new  sphere 
of  existence,  so  baptism,  in  its  similitude  to  a  resur- 
rection, denotes  an  entrance  upon  a  new  life.  Hence 
Dr.  Chalmers,  in  his  Lecture  on  Romans,  vi,  3-7, 
remarks  that  we  '*  are  conceived  in  the  act  of  de- 
scending under  the  water  of  baptism,  to  have  re- 
signed an  old  life,  and  in  the  act  of  ascending,  to 
emerge  into  a  second  or   new  life."     There  is  an 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  107 

emblematic  renunciation  of  "  the  old  life,"  and  there  is 
an  emblematic  entrance  upon  *'  the  new  life."  Wm. 
Tyndale  very  appropriately  remarks  :  "  The  plunging 
into  the  water  signifieth  that  we  die  and  are  buried 
with  Christ,  as  concerning  the  old  life  of  sin,  which 
is  Adam.  And  the  pulling  out  again  signifieth  that 
we  rise  again  with  Christ  in  a  new  life,  full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

Baptism  likewise  anticipates  the  believer's  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.  This  we  learn  from  1  Cor. 
XV,  29 :  ''Else  what  shall  they  do,  who  are  baptized 
for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  Why  are 
they  then  baptized  for  the  dead?"  These  questions 
are  proposed  by  Paul  in  the  midst  of  an  argument 
on  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Some  of  the  Co- 
rinthians, it  seems,  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection, and  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  they  ques- 
tioned the  propriety  of  an  observance  of  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  Paul  virtually  tells  them  that  baptism 
has  an  anticipative  reference  to  the  resurrection  on 
the  last  day.  It  has  this  reference  because  it  has 
a  commemorative  reference  to  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.  It  anticipates,  because  it  commemorates. 
The  reason  is  obvious.  The  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  procures  the  resurrection  of  his  followers, 
and  is  an  infallible  pledge  of  it.  The  two  resurrec- 
tions are  inseparable.  Baptism,  therefore,  while  it 
commemorates  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  anticipates, 
of  necessity,  the  resurrection  of  his  followers.     Dr. 


108  THREE    REASONS, 

A.  Clarke,  in  his  commentary  on  the  verse  under 
consideration,  says  :  **  The  sum  of  the  apostle's  mean- 
ing appears  to  be  this :  If  there  be  no  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  those  who,  in  becoming  Christians,  ex- 
pose themselves  to  all  manner  of  privations,  crosses, 
severe  sufferings,  and  a  violent  death,  can  have  no 
compensation,  nor  any  motive  sufficient  to  induce 
them  to  expose  themselves  to  such  miseries.  But  as 
they  receive  baptism  as  an  emblem  of  death,  in  vol- 
untarily going  under  the  water,  so  they  receive  it  as 
an  emblem  of  the  resurrection  unto  eternal  life,  in 
coming  up  out  of  tlie  water  :  thus  they  are  baptized 
for  the  dead,  in  perfect  faith  of  the  resurrection.'* 

Now,  if  these  views  of  the  design  and  emblematic 
import  of  baptism  are  correct,  it  follows  inevitably 
that  the  immersion  in  water  of  a  believer  in  Christ 
is  essential  to  baptism- — so  essential  that  there  is  no 
baptism  without  it.  If  baptism  represents  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  must  be  immersion. 
Do  the  sprinkling  and  pouring  of  water  bear  any 
analogy  to  a  burial  and  resurrection?  Absolutely 
none.  They  would  never  suggest  the  idea  of  burial 
or  resurrection.  Immersion,  however,  bears  a  striking 
resemblance  to  a  burial  and  resurrection.  We  are 
"buried  by  baptism" — that  is,  by  means  of  baptism. 
When  the  baptismal  process  is  performed  there  is 
certainly  a  ** burial."  The  two  are  inseparable;  and 
therefore,  where  there  is  no  "burial,"  there  is  no 
baptism.     Were   it   necessary,    I   might   show  that 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  109 

Wall,  Whiteiield,  Wesley,  Doddridge,  Chalmers, 
Barnes,  Macknight,  Bloomfield,  and  many  others,  all 
Pedobaptists,  admit  that  the  phrase,  "buried  by 
baptism,"  alludes  to  immersion. 

It  is  quite  common,  however,  for  the  Rabbis  of 
Pedobaptist  Israel,  in  these  latter  days,  to  insist  that 
there  is  no  reference  to  "water  baptism,"  Spiritual 
baptism,  say  they,  is  spoken  of.  They  think  in  this 
way  to  nullify  the  argument  for  immersion.  But  do 
they  accomplish  their  object?  Let  us  see.  I  will 
meet  these  Rabbis  on  their  own  chosen  ground.  Let 
it  be  conceded,  then,  for  argument's  sake,  that 
"  buried  by  baptism "  denotes  spiritual  baptism. 
Then  there  is  a  spiritual  burial.  Now  it  is  a  well 
settled  point  among  Pedobaptists  that  the  outward 
baptism  is  a  sign  of  the  inward.  If,  then,  the  in- 
ward baptism  involves  a  spiritual  burial,  the  outward 
baptism  should  involve  a  burial  in  water,  that  it  may 
adequately  represent  the  inward.  Men  may  torture 
and  put  to  the  rack  the  phrase,  "buried  by  bap- 
tism," but  it  will  testify  of  immersion.  It  cannot  be 
divested  of  its  allusion  to  Christian  immersion. 

To  conclude  the  argument  from  the  design  of  bap- 
tism : — How  stands  the  matter  ?  If  baptism  com- 
memorates the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  it 
must  be  immersion.  If  it  is  an  emblematic  repre- 
j^sentation  of  death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  to  newness 
of  life,  (and  to  this  view  Pedobaptists  do  not  specially 
object,)  tlie  representation  is  essentially  incomplete 
10 


110  THREE  REASONS, 

without  immersion.  If  there  is  something  in  it  which 
anticipates  and  resembles  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  still  it  must  be  immersion.  Sprinkling  and 
pouring  are  as  infinitely  unlike  a  resurrection  as  they 
are  unlike  a  burial.  Even  if  Dr.  Beecher's  "purifi- 
cation theory"  were  to  receive  the  countenance  which 
he  no  doubt  thinks  it  deserves,  immersion  would  be 
more  suitable  than  sprinkling  or  pouring.  Is  not  the 
whole  soul  defiled  with  sin?  Must  not  the  whole 
soul  be  cleansed  from  sin?  If,  then,  baptism  is  re- 
ceived (some  take  this  view)  as  a  symbol  of  the 
necessity  of  purification,  something  that  affects  the 
whole  body  is  required  to  indicate  the  totality  of  that 
necessity.  Or  if  baptism  is  regarded  as  a  sign  of  the 
purification  already  accomplished,  then  the  immersion 
of  the  body  in  water  is  appropriate  to  show  that  the 
soul  has  been  washed  from  sin  in  the  blood  of 
Christ. 

5.  The  places  selected  for  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism, and  the  circumstances  attending  its  administration y 
as  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  afford  an  addi- 
tional argument  in  proof  of  the  position  of  Baptists. 

John  baptized  in  Jordan.  That  the  Jordan  is  a 
suitable  stream  for  purposes  of  immersion  is  manifest 
from  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
of  modern  travelers  and  scholars — Dr.  Edward  Rob- 
inson. Speaking  of  the  Jordan,  he  says:  *'We  esti- 
mated the  breadth  of  the  stream  to  be  from  eighty 
to  one  hundred  feet.     The  guides  supposed  it  to  be 


WHY   I    AM    A   BAPTIST.  Ill 

now  ten  or  twelve  feet  deep.  I  batlied  in  tlie  river, 
without  going  out  into  the  deep  channel."* 

Even  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  was  quite'  conspicuous 
in  his  opposition  to  immersion,  in  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  expresses  himself  thus:  "That  the  bap- 
tism of  John  was  by  plunging  the  body,  seems  to 
appear  from  those  things  which  are  related  of  him; 
namely,  that  he  baptized  in  Jordan;  that  he  baptized 
in  Enon,  because  there  was  much  water  there ;  and  that 
Christ,  being  baptized,  came  up  out  of  the  water ;  to 
which  that  seems  to  be  parallel,  (Acts,  viii,  38,) 
*^ Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  down  into  the  water,''  etc.f 

I  am  aware  that  Pedobaptists  argue  that  John's 
was  not  Christian  baptism — that  he  did  not  live  under 
the  gospel  dispensation,  etc.  Dissenting,  as  I  cer- 
tainly do,  from  these  views,  I  waive  a  consideration 
of  them  as  foreign  from  my  present  purpose.  It  is 
suflQcient  for  me  to  say,  that  even  if  it  could  be  shown 
that  John's  was  not  Christian  baptism,  it  would  avail 
Pedobaptists  nothing.  "Why  ?  John  performed  an 
act  called  baptism,  and  various  circumstances,  as 
well  as  the  meaning  of  the  word,  indicate  that  that 
act  was  immersion.  Pedobaptists  attempt  to  invali- 
date the  force  of  those  circumstances  by  denying 
that  John  administered  Christian  baptism.  But  they 
admit   that   the   apostles,   after   the   resurrection  of 

*  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,  Vol.  II,  p.  256. 
t  Quoted  in  Clarke's  Commentary,  Vol.  V,  p.  325. 


112  THREE  REASONS, 

Christ,  administered  Christian  baptism.  Very  well. 
The  same  term  used  to  denote  the  act  performed  by 
John,  is  used  to  designate  the  act  performed  by  them. 
It  must,  therefore,  have  been  the  same  act.  For 
surely  no  sane  man  will  say  that  the  term  baptize 
means  one  thing  in  its  connection  with  John's  min- 
istry, and  a  different  thing  in  connection  with  the 
ministry  of  the  apostles.  Hence  I  repeat  that  if  it 
could  be  shown  that  John's  was  not  Christian  bap- 
tism, it  would  amount  to  just  nothing  at  all. 

There  is  another  Pedobaptist  sentiment  which  de- 
serves exposure :  It  is  that  Jesus  Christ  was  baptized 
to  initiate  him  into  the  priestly  office.  To  show  the 
absurdity  of  this  view,  I  need  only  ask  a  few  ques- 
tions :  Was  not  the  Messiah  ''made  a  priest  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedec,  and  not  after  the  order  of 
Aaron?"  How  could  he  be  a  priest,  according  to 
the  law  of  Moses,  when  he  belonged  to  the  "  tribe 
of  Judah?"  Was  not  the  priestly  office  confined  to 
the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  to  the  family  of  Aaron,  in 
that  tribe?  Did  not  the  law  say:  "The  stranger 
that  Cometh  nigh  shall  be  put  to  death?"  All  that 
Pedobaptists  say  about  the  baptismal  initiation  of 
Christ,  into  the  priestly  office,  is  at  war  with  the 
Scriptures.  And  why  this  attempt  to  show  that  the 
Savior  was  made  a  priest  by  his  baptism?  The 
object  must  be  to  evade  the  moral  power  of  his 
example.  For  no  man  can  lay  aside  his  prejudices, 
and  deny  that  Jesus   Christ  was  immersed  in  the 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  1 1  3 

Jordan.  But  if  the  people  can  be  made  to  believe 
that  the  baptism  of  Christ  had  special  reference  to 
his  sacerdotal  consecration,  they  will  feel  compara- 
tively exempt  from  obligation  to  follow  his  example, 
as  they  are  not  baptized  that  they  may  become 
priests.  The  truth  is  that  Jesus,  in  his  baptism,  as 
well  as  in  other  respects,  has  "left  us  an  example, 
that  we  should  follow  his  steps." 

The  Jordan  was,  unquestionably,  a  suitable  stream 
for  purposes  of  immersion,  and  John  baptized  in 
Jordan,  and  Jesus,  when  baptized,  **  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water."  John  also  baptized  *'in 
Enon,  near  to  Salim."  John  iii,  23.  Why?  Let 
Dr.  Miller  answer.  He  says :  **  Independently  of 
immersion  altogether,  plentiful  streams  of  water  were 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  constant  refreshment  and 
sustenance  of  the  many  thousands  who  were  encamped 
from  day  to  day  to  witness  the  preaching  and  the 
baptism  of  this  extraordinary  man;  together  with  the 
beasts  employed  for  their  transportation.  Only  figure 
to  yourselves  a  large  encampment  of  men,  women 
and  children,  etc.  *  *  ^"  *  *  As  a  poor  man,  who 
lived  in  the  wilderness,  whose  raiment  was  of  the 
meanest  kind,  and  whose  food  was  such  alone  as  the 
desert  afforded,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  pos- 
sessed appropriate  vessels  for  administering  baptism 
to  multitudes  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  He,  there- 
fore, seems  to  have  made  use  of  the  neighboring 
stream  of  water   for   this   purpose,   descending    its 


114  THREE  REASONS, 

banks,  and  setting  his  feet  on  its  margin,  so  as  to 
admit  of  his  using  a  handful,  to  answer  the  symboli- 
cal purpose  intended  by  the  application  of  water  in 
baptism."     Miller  on  Baptism,  pp.  92,  93. 

What  to  call  this  extract,  I  really  do  not  know.  It 
is  not  argument — it  is  not  logic — it  is  not  common 
sense.  There  seems  to  be  a  mixture  of  assertion, 
supposition  and  fiction.  No  man  was  more  compe- 
tent to  prepare  such  a  mixture  than  Dr.  M.*  Where 
did  he  learn  that  **  plentiful  streams  of  water  ward' 
absolutely  necessary"  for  the  purposes  which  he 
specifies?  What  he  says  about  the  ''large  encamp- 
ment," must  have  been  a  day-dream — and  so  must 

*  I  refer  to  Dr.  Miller's  work  on  Baptism  on  account  of  his 
prominent  position  in  the  Princeton  Seminary  for  a  long 
series  of  years.  The  book  itself  is  remarkably  unworthy  of 
notice.  It  substitutes  assertion  for  proof.  "/  caii  assure 
you,"  is  the  dogmatic  phrase  often  used  where  otlier  men 
would  have  attempted  to  adduce  proof.  There  are  blunders 
that  would  be  unpardonable  in  any  student  that  ever  was,  is 
now,  or  ever  will  be  at  Princeton.  For  example,  Dr.  M.  says: 
"  The  evangelists  tell  us  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  in- 
variably washed  ("in  the  original  baptized)  Ihoir  hands  before 
dinner."  Any  Greek  scholar,  by  turning  to  Mark  vii,  3,  may 
see  that  nipto  is  used  in  the  original.  Again:  Dr.  M.  sa,ys, 
Judas  "  is  said  by  Christ  himself,  to  baptize  his  hand  in  the 
dish  (as  it  is  in  the  original,  Matthew,  xxvi,  23").  Baptizo  is 
not  in  the  original.  The  word  used  is  emhapto.  These  may 
serve  as  specimens  of  the  unscholarly  errors  of  the  book.  Its 
author's  position  is  surely  the  only  thing  that  has  ever  brought 
such  a  hook  into  notice 


TVHT   I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  116 

have  been  the  beastly  portion  of  his  statement.  The 
evangehsts  say  nothing  of  the  "encampment,"  and 
make  no  allusions  to  the  "beasts."  Poverty  is  a 
misfortune,  but  not  a  crime;  and,  therefore,  I  shall 
not  take  ofiFense  at  the  reference  to  the  indigence  of 
the  first  Baptist  preacher.  However,  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  John  was  not  able  to  own  "  ap- 
propriate vessels"  for  purposes  of  "pouring  or 
sprinkling."  But  admitting  his  extreme  poverty 
when  he  went  to  the  Jordan  to  baptize,  he  then 
became  so  popular  that  an  intimation  from  him  that 
he  would  like  to  have  "  appropriate  vessels,"  would 
have  secured  as  many  as  all  those  ''beasts"  could 
have  transported.  Why  did  he  not,  then,  get  ''ves- 
sels," and  supersede  the  necessity  of  his  going  to 
"Enon,  near  to  Salim,"  where  there  was  "much 
water?"  Would  not  Herod,  also,  have  furnished 
"appropriate  vessels,"  at  the  time  he  "did  many 
things,  and  heard  John  gladly?"  But  enough  of 
this. 

And  what  does  Dr.  Rice,  in  his  Lexington  Debate, 
page  193,  say  of  the  "much  water?"  Here  is  his 
language:  "John,  it  is  true,  was  baptizing  in  Enon, 
near  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there. 
But  did  he  want  much  water  to  baptize  in ;  or  did  he 
want  it  for  other  purposes?  As  I  have  already 
stated,  multitudes  of  the  Jews  who  resorted  to  him, 
remained  together  several  days  at  a  time.  They 
must  observe  their  daily  ablutions.     For  these  and 


116  THREE    REASONS, 

for  ordinary  purposes,  they  needed  mucli  water;  but 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  John  wanted  the  water  for 
the  purpose  of  baptizing." 

Doctors  of  Divinity  should,  of  course,  be  wise 
men.  They  ought  not,  however,  to  be  "wise  above 
what  is  written."  Where  did  Dr.  Rice  learn  that  the 
"  multitudes"  who  went  to  John  ''remained  together 
several  days?"  Who  told  him  about  those  ''daily 
ablutions?"  By  what  sort  of  tortuous  logic  can  he 
show  that  the  Jews  "needed  much  water"  for  other 
purposes,  but  not  for  baptismal  purposes,  when  bap- 
tism is  the  only  thing  requiring  water  mentioned  in 
the  controverted  passage  ?  Who  authorized  him  to 
fabricate  premises  that  he  might  draw  from  them 
such  a  conclusion  as  he  desired?  It  is  humiliating 
when  such  men  as  Drs.  Miller  and  Rice  "handle  the 
word  of  God  deceitfully."  I  have  allowed  these 
gentlemen  to  answer  the  question.  Why  did  John 
baptize  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  where  there  was 
much  water?  They  have  given  their  answers — and 
such  ansivers!  It  is  time  for  the  Evangelist  to  speak, 
and  for  Doctors  of  Divinity  to  keep  silence.  What 
does  he  say?  "And  John,  also,  was  baptizing  in 
Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water 
there:  and  they  came  and  were  Ja^j^i^d?^"  Is  there 
anything  here  about  "encampments,"  "beasts," 
"daily  ablutions,"  etc.?  Did  not  the  people  go  to 
John  to  be  baptized — not  to  encamp — not  to  water 
their  beasts — not  to  "observe  their  daily  ablutions?" 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  1  17 

Did  not  John  select  Enon  as  a  suitable  place  for  his 
purpose,  because  there  was  much  water  there  ?  And 
did  he  not  need  "much  water"  in  baptizing?  And 
is  not  this  a  powerful  circumstantial  argument  in 
favor  of  immersion  ?  I  speak  in  plainness  and  sor- 
row when  I  say  that  those  who  expound  the  passage 
under  consideration  as  Drs.  Miller  and  Rice  have 
done,  assign  a  reason  for  John's  selection  of  Enon  as 
a  baptismal  place  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not 
assigned.  There  is  not  an  angel  in  heaven  who 
would  not  tremble  at  the  very  thought  of  doing  such 
a  thing.  Alas !  presumptuous  mortals  do  many 
things  from  which  angels  would  instinctively  recoil. 
Were  it  not  a  solemn  matter,  it  would  be  amusing  to 
present  a  parallel  to  the  reasoning  that  has  now 
passed  under  review.  If  it  were  said  that  a  man 
has  erected  a  "  merchant  mill  "  on  a  certain  stream 
because  there  is  much  water  there,  most  persons 
would  say  that  he  wanted  much  water  for  purposes 
of  grinding.  Such  men  as  Drs.  Miller  and  Rice, 
however,  would  say:  "You  totally  misconceive  the 
man's  object.  He  has  built  his  mill  on  that  stream, 
not  because  he  needs  the  water  to  turn  his  machinery, 
but  that  those  who  "  encamp  "  at  the  mill  may  have 
water  to  drink,  and  perform  their  "  daily  ablutions," 
and  that  their  "beasts"  may  drink  also."  This 
would  be  the  reasoning ;  and  most  people  would  say, 
if  the  authors  of  such  reasoning  are  not  sent  to  a 
Lunatic  Asylum,  there  is  no  use  for  Lunatic  Asylums. 


118  THREE  REASONS, 

After  all,  I  must  say  that  Dr.  Lvlce  is  a  logician — 
a  conclusive  reasoner — and  an  admirable  preacher. 
I  refer  now  to  his  ordinary  pulpit  ministrations.  But 
put  him  on  the  wrong  side  of  a  question,  as  he  is  in 
the  baptismal  controversy,  and  he  is  at  once  like 
Samson,  shorn  of  his  locks.  It  is  the  cause,  rather 
than  the  man,  that  is  weak. 

To  demolish  all  that  has  ever  been  said  about 
John's  selecting  places  where  there  was  much  water 
for  other  than  baptismal  purposes,  I  need  only  state 
a  few  facts :  We  are  told  that  in  the  early  part 
of  the  Savior's  ministry,  "great  multitudes  followed 
him" — subsequently  he  miraculously  fed  at  one  time 
"four  thousand,"  and  at  another  "five  thousand 
men,  beside  women  and  children  " — and  on  anothei 
occasion  "  an  innumerable  multitude  gathered  to- 
gether, so  that  they  trod  one  upon  another."  But 
there  was  nothing  said  about  water.  It  is  not  said 
that  "seeing  the  multitude,  he  went  Avhere  there 
was  much  water,  that  they  might  be  refreshed — but 
he  went  into  a  mountain.  Why  is  water  not  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  the  crowds  that  so  often 
thronged  about  the  Savior?  When,  however,  John's 
baptism  is  referred  to,  (John,  iii,  23,)  it  is  said  he 
was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there 
was  muck  water  there.  Did  he  select  that  place 
that  the  people  and  their  beasts  might  drink,  be 
refreshed,  etc. ;  and  was  the  Savior  less  considerate? 
The  truth  is — and  it  is  vain  for  men  or  devils  to  deny 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  119 

it — much  water  was  required  in  baptism.  This  would 
not  have  been  the  case  if  baptism  had  not  been  im- 
mersion. There  is  nothing  said  about  baptism  in 
connection  with  the  multitudes  that  often  crowded 
around  the  Savior,  and  therefore  there  is  no  mention 
of  water — "much  water." 

The  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  (referred  to  Acts, 
viii,  38,)  is  worthy  of  consideration.  The  sacred 
historian  says:  "And  they  went  down  both  into  the 
watrer,  both  Phihp  and  the  eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized 
him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the 
water,"  etc.  It  has  been  often  said  that  going  into 
the  water  does  not  necessarily  imply  immersion.  And 
who  supposes  that  it  does  ?  It  would  surely  be  pos- 
sible to  "go  into  water,"  and  "  conie  up  out  of  it," 
without  being  immersed.  But  suppose,  as  "in  the 
case  before  us,  between  the  two  movements  the  act 
of  baptism  occurs.  What  then  ?  Evidently  the 
word  baptize  must  determine  the  nature  of  that  act. 
This  is  the  view  entertained  by  Baptists.  They  say 
the  term  baptize  shows  what  act  Philip  performed 
after  he  descended  with  the  eunuch  into  the  water. 
And  they  confidently  appeal  to  all  Greek  literature, 
profane  and  sacred,  in  support  of  the  position  thai 
hoytizo  means  to  immerse.  Hence  they  would  be  as 
$ully  satisfied  as  they  now  are  of  the  eunuch's  im- 
mersion, if  not  one  word  had  been  said  about  the 
descent  into  the  water.  Still  they  regard  the  going 
dovvn  into  the  water  and  the  coming  up  out  of  the 


120  THREE    REASONS, 

water  as  furnishing  a  very  strong  circumstantial  proof 
of  immersion.  They  assume  that  Phihp  anci  the 
eunuch  Avere  men  of  good  sense,  and,  if  so,  they  did 
not  go  into  the  water  for  purposes  of  "pouring  or 
sprinkling."  Persons  of  good  sense  coiild  not  do 
so  foolish  a  thing. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  Greek  preposition,  eis,  trans- 
lated i72to,  means  to,  and  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
only  went  to  the  water.  As  sensible  men,  they  would 
not  have  done  that,  if  pouring  or  sprinkling  had  been 
the  act  to  be  performed.  Why  go  down  to  the  water? 
Why  not  have  a  cup  full,  or  a  spoonful,  taken  up  to 
the  chariot? 

In  reference  to  eis,  Dr.  Summers,  in  his  book  on 
Baptism,  p.  100,  says:  "When  eis  means  i7ito,  it  is 
before  the  noun,  as  well  as  before  the  verb."  The 
argument  based  on  this  statement  is,  that  as  eis  is 
used  but  once  in  Acts,  viii,  38,  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
did  not  go  into,  but  only  to  the  water,  and  the  con- 
clusion is,  that  "  the  eunuch  w^as  not  immersed." 

Did  Dr.  S.  ever  read  the  second  chapter  of  Mat- 
thew, in  Greek?  If  so,  he  knows  that  in  verses  11, 
12,  13,  14,  20,  21,  22,  we  have  the  phrases,  "into 
the  house,"  "into  their  own  country,"  "into  Egypt," 
"into  the  land  of  Israel,"  and  "into  the  parts  of 
Galilee."  He  knows,  also,  that  eis  is  translated  iiito, 
in  all  these  places,  and  that  it  is  used  but  once.  If, 
then,  the  statement  of  Dr.  S.  is  true  in  regard  to  eis, 
the  "wise  men"  did  not  go  ''into  the  house,"  did 


WHY   I    AM    A   BAPTIST.  121 

not  return  ^'inio  their  own  country."  Joseph  was 
not  reqmred  to  "  flee  into  Egypt,"  etc. 

Again,  if  the  philology  of  Dr.  S.  is  worth  any- 
thing, the  devils  referred  to,  Matthew,  viii,  31,  32, 
33,  did  not  enter  *'  into  the  swine,"  and  the  swine  did 
not  run  **  into  the  sea,"  and  the  keepers  of  the  swine 
did  not  go  "into  the  city,"  etc.  In  all  these  places, 
eis  is  used  but  once.  It  seems,  also,  that  the  Savior, 
in  Matthew,  ix,  17,  did  not  speak  of  putting  wine  into 
bottles,  but  only  to  bottles ;  for  eis  is  used  but  once. 
Query:  How  could  the  "  new  wine"  break  the  ''old 
bottles"  without  being  put  into  them  ?  Once  more : 
It  is  said,  Matthew,  xxv,  46,  "And  these  shall  go 
away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous 
into  life  eternal."  Here,  also,  eis  is  used  but  once, 
and  according  to  the  criticism  I  am  exposing,  the 
wicked  do  not  go  "into  everlasting  punishment,"  nor 
the  riohteous  "into  life  eternal."      But  in  all  these 

o 

passages,  Pedobaptists  very  readily  admit  that  eis 
means  into.  They  have  no  objection  to  this  meaning, 
unless  baptismal  waters  are  referred  to.  This  little 
word  eis,  is  a  strange  word,  indeed,  if  what  they  say 
of  it,  is  true.  It  will  take  a  man  into  a  country,  into 
a  city,  into  a  house,  into  a  ship,  into  heaven,  into 
hell — into  any  place  in  the  universe,  except  the 
water !  Poor  word !  afilicted,  it  seems,  with  hydro- 
phobia. It  will  allow  a  person  to  go  to  the  water, 
but  not  into  it.  However,  where  baptism  is  not  re- 
ferred to,  it  may  denote  entrance  into  water,  as  in 


122  THREE    REASONS, 

Mark,  ix,  22.  But  laying  irony  aside,  I  affirm  in 
the  face  of  the  hterary  world,  that  Greek  writers 
often  use  eis  twice,  to  express  tlje  idea  of  entrance 
into  a  place — once  in  composition  with  the  verb,  and 
once  before  the  noun  or  pronoun — and  th'ey  often  use 
it  but  once  to  denote  the  same  idea  of  entrance  into 
a  place.  The  man  who  does  not  know  this,  ought 
to  rehnquish  all  pretensions  to  Greek  scholarship. 
A  Freshman,  in  any  of  our  colleges,  would  deserve 
rebuke,  w^re  he  to  make  such  statements  in  refer- 
ence to  eis,  as  Pedobaptist  Doctors  of  Divinity, 
frequently  make. 

Suppose  the  following  facts  were  published  in  any 
Pedobaptist  paper  in  America:  **An  officer  of  the 
United  States'  Government  was  travelino- — ridino;  in  a 
carriage,  and  reading  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  A 
minister  Avas  going  on  foot,  in  the  same  direction,  and 
was  invited  by  the  officer  to  ride  with  him.  Having 
accepted  the  invitation,  the  minister  preached  Jesus 
to  the  officer;  and  as  they  journeyed,  the  officer  said, 
See,  here  is  water ;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  bap- 
tized? And  the  minister  said,  If  thou  believest  with 
all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  the  officer  said,  I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And 
he  commanded  the  carriage  to  stand  still :  and  they 
went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  the  minister  and 
ihe  officer,  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,"  etc.  Let  such  a 
narrative  as  this  be  published  in  a  Pedobaptist  paper. 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  133 

and  the  readers  of  that  paper,  without  an  exception, 
would  say  :  That  minister  was  an  immersionist,  and 
chat  officer  was  immersed.  Now,  I  ask,  if  such  a 
narrative  as  this,  would  not  be  substantially  the  nar- 
rative we  have  in  Acts,  viii,  27 — 39  ?  Let  the  reader 
determine.  When  will  men  learn  to  exercise  a  little 
common  sense  in  reference  to  religious  matters  ? 

Pedobaptists  are  exceedingly  unreasonable  in  their 
management  of  the  baptismal  controversy.  They 
insist  that  it  is  utterly  improbable  that  suitable  water 
could  be  found  at  Jerusalem  for  the  immersion  of 
three  thousand  persons,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost — 
that  there  is  no  reference  to  a  stream  of  water  in  con- 
nection with  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  the 
jailer,  etc.,  etc.  One  would  imagine  that  if  there 
was  anything  said  about  a  "river,"  "much  water," 
etc.,  it  would  be  conceded  that  these  baptisms  were 
immersions.  But  it  would  not  be  so.  For  when 
Baptists  refer  to  the  Jordan  or  Enon,  where  there 
was  "much  water,"  or  to  the  water  into  which  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  went  down,  Pedobaptists  argue  that 
an  abundance  of  water,  by  no  means,  indicates  that 
the  act  of  immersion  was  performed.  We  cannot 
please  them  at  all.  They  are  like  the  Jewish  children 
in  the  markets :  If  we  pipe  to  them,  they  will  not 
dance ;  if  we  mourn  to  them  they  will  not  lament.  If 
there  is  no  mention  of  a  "  river  "  in  connection  with  a 
baptismal  narrative  of  the  New  Testament,  the  cry 
is,  "no  immersion,  scarcity  of  water,"  etc.     If  th€ 


124  THREE    REASONS, 

river  Jordan  is  named,  the  same  cry  of  "  no  immer- 
sion," is  heard.  So  that,  according  to  Pedobaptist 
logic,  scarcity  of  water,  and  abundance  of  water, 
prove  the  very  same  thing !  How  are  we  to  meet  in 
argument,  men  who  draw  the  same  conclusion  from 
premises  as  far  apart  '-'as  from  the  center,  thrice  to 
the  utmost  pole?'*  They  repudiate  all  the  laws  of 
logic,  and  trample  under  their  feet,  all  the  principles 
of  common  sense.  But  I  will  not  indulge  in  severity 
of  remark.  Such  men  probably  have  enough  to  suf- 
fer from  the  accusations  of  conscience,  if,  indeed, 
conscience  has  not  ceased  to  perform  its  office. 

John  Calvin  felt  the  force  of  the  argument  in  favor 
of  immersion,  derived  from  the  places  selected  for 
the  administration  of  baptism.  Hence,  in  his  Com- 
mentary, (translated  by  Rev.  William  Pringle,  Edin- 
burgh, and  printed  for  the  Calvin  Translation  So- 
ciety,) he  remarks,  on  John,  iii,  22,  23,  ''From 
these  words  we  may  infer  that  John  and  Christ  ad- 
ministered baptism  by  plunging  the  whole  body 
beneath  the  water."  On  Acts,  viii,  38,  he  says : 
**  Here  we  see  the  rite  used  among  the  men  of  old 
time,  in  baptism ;  for  they  put  all  the  body  into  the 
water.  Now  the  use  is  this,  that  the  minister  doth 
only  sprinkle  the  body  or  the  head.  But  we  ought 
not  to  stand  so  much  about  a  small  difference  of  a 
ceremony,  that  we  should,  therefore,  divide  the 
church,  or  trouble  the  same  with  brawls,  *  *  *  * 
*  *.     Wherefore  the  church  did   grant   liberty  co 


•WHY   I    AM    A   BAPTIST.  125 

lierself,  since  the  beoinnino-,  to  change  the  rites 
somewhat,  excepting  the  substance."  So  much  for 
the  testimony  of  the  Founder  of  Presbyteiianism. 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  historical  argument  in 
favor  of  immersion,  I  will  say  that  if  baptizo  means 
to  immerse,  it  does  not  mean  sprinkle  or  pour.  If  it 
means  sprinkle,  it  does  not  mean  immerse  or  pour. 
If  it  means  pour,  it  does  not  mean  sprinkle  or  im- 
merse. It  is  nonsense  to  say  that  the  word  can  de- 
note three  actions  so  dissimilar.  It  is  an  outrage 
on  the  philosophy  of  language.  Did  not  Jesus 
Christ,  in  enjoining  baptism,  give  a  specific  com- 
mand? If  he  did  not,  it  is  impossible  to  know  what 
he  requires,  and  the  impossibihty  releases  from  all 
obligation  to  obey  the  requirement.  I  say  boldly 
that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  any  man  to  be  baptized,  if 
he  cannot  know  what  baptism  is.  All  candid  per- 
sons, upon  examination  of  the  subject,  must  admit 
that  the  Savior  gave  a  specific  command,  when  he 
enjoined  baptism  on  believers.  And  if  so,  he  did 
not  require  them  to  be  immersed  in  water,  or  that 
water  be  poured  or  sprinkled  on  them.  He  did 
not  require  any  one  of  three  things ;  for  on  this  sup- 
position, the  command  loses  its  specific  character. 
The  matter  then  comes  to  this  point :  Did  Christ  re- 
quire believers  to  be  immersed  in  water,  or  to  have 
water  applied  to  them  by  sprinkling  or  pouring? 
Now,  if  the  word  baptize,  in  the  New  Testament, 
means  sprinkle  or  pour,  as  Pedobap lists  insist;  and 
11 


126  THREE    REASONS, 

if  baptism  is  an  "  application  of  water,"  is  it  not  in- 
finitely remarkable  that  -svater  is  never  said  to  be 
baptized  upon  the  subject  of  the  ordinance,  and  that 
the  water  is  never  said  to  be  applied?  If  baptize 
means  sprinkle  or  pour,  the  water  is  baptized,  not 
the  person.  We  cannot  speak  of  sprinkling  a  man 
without  an  ellipsis  or  figure  of  speech.  And  no 
rational  person  would  expect  to  find  either  an  ellipsis 
or  figure  of  speech  in  the  apostolic  commission. 
Sprinkling  implies  the  separation  and  scattering  of 
the  particles  of  the  substance  sprinkled.  A  man 
cannot  be  poured,  because  pouring  implies  a  continu- 
ous stream  of  the  substance  poured.  I  say  again, 
if  baptize,  in  the  New  Testament,  means  sprinkle  or 
pour,  the  water  is  baptized.  But  nowhere  is  water 
found  in  the  objective  case,  after  the  verb  baptize,  in 
the  active-  voice,  and  nowhere  is  it  the  nominative 
case  to  the  verb  in  the  passive  voice.  AVe  never 
read,  I  baptize  water  upon  you ;  but  I  baptize  you. 
It  is  never  said :  Water  was  bajHized  upon  them  ;  but 
it  is  said :  **  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women." 
The  subjects  of  the  ordinance  are  baptized,  the  water 
is  not.  And,  therefore,  baptize,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, signifies  neither  sprinkle  nor  pour.  But  sub* 
stitute  immerse  for  it,  and  how  plain  and  beautiful 
every  baptismal  narrative !  I  immerse  you,  not  the 
water.  They  were  immersed,  that  is,  the  *'men  and 
women'*  Those  who  do  not  look  upon  this  state- 
ment of  the  matter  as  conclusive  against  sprinkling  and 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  127 

pouring,  ought  (even  if  they  are  Doctors  of  Divinit}^) 
to  apply  themselves  at  once  to  the  study  of  EugUsh 
Grammar.  A  knowledge  of  this  science,  coupled 
with  candor  and  common  sense,  would  extricate  them 
from  the  mazes  of  error. 

6.  History  bears  testimony  to  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion, except  in  cases  of  sickness  and  urgent  necessity, 
for  more  than  thirteen  hundred  years. 

I  avail  myself,  as  I  have  done,  of  Pedobaptist  wit- 
nesses:  My  first  witness  is  Richard  Baxter,  author 
of  the  **  Saints'  Rest."  He  says:  "It  is  commonly 
confessed  by  us  to  the  Anabaptists,  as  our  commen- 
tators declare,  that  in  the  apostles'  times,  the  bap- 
tized were  dipped  over  head  in  the  water,  and  that 
this  signified  their  profession,  both  of  believing  the 
btirial  and  resurrection  of  Christ;  and  of  their  own 
present  renouncing  the  world  and  flesh,  or  dying  to 
sin  and  livinf?  to  Christ,  or  risino'  ao-ain  to  newness  of 
life,  or  being  buried  and  risen  again  with  Christ, 
as  the  apostle  expoundeth,  in  the  fore-cited  texts  of 
Col.  ii,  and  Rom.  vi."* 

The  celebrated  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  refers  to  the 
Roman  Catholics  as  giving  the  sacramental  bread  to 
the  laity,  and  withholding  the  cup  from  them.  He 
remarks:  "They  may  think  that  in  what  is  merely 
ritual,  deviations  from  the  primitive  mode  may  be 
admitted  on  the  ground  of  convenience ;  and  I  think 

*  Quoted  in  Booth's  Pedobaptism  Examined. 


128  THREE    REASONS, 

they  are  as  well  warranted  to  make  this  alteration, 
as  we  are  to  substitute  sprinkling  in  the  room  of  the 
ancient  baptism."* 

John  Wesley,  in  his  Journal  of  Feb.  21,    1736, 
writes  as  follows:  **Mary  Welch,  aged  eleven  days,' 
was    baptized   according    to  the   custom  of  the  first 
church,  and  the  rule  of  the  Church  of  England,  by 
immersion." 

Dr.  Miller,  with  his  bitter  opposition  to  immersion, 
says:  **It  is  not  denied  that,  for  the  first  few  cen- 
turies after  Christ,  the  most  common  mode  of  admin- 
istering baptism  was  by  immersion. "•{• 

The  learned  Mosheim,  in  his  Church  History,  says 
of  the  first  century  :  "  The  sacrament  of  hui^ism  was 
administered  in  this  century,  without  the  public  as- 
semblies, in  places  appointed  and  prepared  for  that 
purpose,  and  was  performed  by  an  immersion  of  the 
whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font." 

Of  the  second  century,  he  says:  **The  persons 
that  were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the 
creed,  confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and  par- 
ticularly the  devil  and  his  pompous  allurements,  were 
immersed  under  water  and  received  into  Christ's 
kingdom,"  etc. 

Of  the  fourth  century,  he  says:  "Baptismal  fonts 
w^ere  now  erected  in  the  porch  of  each  church,  for 


*Bosw'ell's  Life  of  Johson,  Vol.  II.,  p.  383. 
t  Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  116. 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  129 

the  more  commodious  adminislration  of  that  initiating 
sacrament."* 

The  celebrated  Church  Historian,  Neander,  in  his 
Letter  to  Judd,  expresses  himself  thus:  "As  to 
your  question  on  the  original  rite  of  baptism,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  whatever,  that  in  the  primitive  times, 
the  ceremony  was  performed  by  immersion,  to  signify 
a  complete  immersion  into  the  new  principle  of  life 
divine,  which  was  to  be  imparted  by  the  Messiah. 
When  St.  Paul  says,  that  through  baptism  we  .are 
buried  with  Christ,  and  rise  again  with  him,  he  un- 
questionably alludes  to  the  symbol  of  dipping  into, 
and  rising  again  out  of  the  water.  The  practice  of 
immersion,  in  the  first  centuries,  was,  beyond  all 
doubt,  prevalent  in  the  whole  church  :  the  only  ex- 
ception was  made  with  the  baptism  of  the  sick,  hence 
termed  baptisma  clinicorum,  which  was  performed 
merely  by  sprinkling."f  I  might  quote  other  testi- 
mony like  this,  from  Neander's  "  Church  History/* 
and  his  **  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Clii  istian 
Church,"  but  the  foregoing  is  suflScient  from  the 
great  Lutheran. 

Dr.  Whitby,  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  his 
Commentary,  says,  on  Rom.  vi,  4,  "It  being  so  ex- 
pressly declared  here  and  Colos.  ii,  12,  that  we 
are  'buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,*  by  being  buried 

•  Maclaine's  Mo:rheini,  (m  2  Vols.,)  Vol.  I,,  pp.46,  G9,  121. 
tSee  Appendix  to  Judd's  Review  of  Stuart, 


130  THREE    REASONS 

under  water  ;  and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  con 
formity  to  his  death,  by  dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence 
and  this  immersion  being  religiously  observed  by  all 
Christians  for  THIRTEEN  CENTURIES,  and  ap- 
proved by  our  church,  and  the  change  of  it  into 
sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from  the  au- 
♦Jior  of  the  institution,  or  any  license  from  any  coun- 
cil of  the  church,  being  that  which  the  Romanist  still 
urgeth  to  justify  his  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity ; 
it  were  to  be  wished,  that  this  custom  mioht  be  ao-ain  of 
general  use,  and  aspersion  only  permitted,  as  of  old, 
in  case  of  the  clinici,  or  in  present  danger  of  death." 
And  what  says  Professor  Stuart?  Quoting  Augusti, 
who  refers  to  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion  as  "a 
thing  made  out,"  he  says  :  "So,  indeed,  all  the  wri- 
ters who  have  thoroughly  investigated  this  subject, 
conclude.  I  know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times, 
which  seems  to  be  more  clearly  and  certainly  made 
out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  candid 
man  who  examines  the  subject,  to  deny  this."  Again: 
**  The  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  the  Oriental 
Church  has  always  continued  to  preserve,  even  down 
to  the  present  time.  The  members  of  this  church 
are  accustomed  to  call  the  members  of  tlie  western 
churches,  sprinkled  Christians,  by  way  of  ridicule 
and  contempt.  They  maintain,  that  hajjtizo  can  mean 
nothing  but  immerge  ;  and  that  baptism  hy  sprinHi7if/ 
is  as  great  a  solecism  as  immersion  by  asjyersion  ;  and 
they  claim  to  themselves  the  honor  of  having  pre- 


WHY   1    AM    A    BAPTIST.  131 

served  the  ancient  sacred  rite  of  the  church  free 
from  change  and  from  corruption,  which  would  de- 
stroy its  significancy."* 

Coleman,  in  his  recent  work,  entitled  **  Ancient 
Christianity  Exemplified,"  referring  to  immersion, 
says  :  **In  tlie  primitive  church,  immediatelj^  subse- 
quent to  the  age  of  the  apostles,  this  was  undeniably 
the  common  mode  of  baptism.  The  utmost  that  can 
be  said  of  sprinMing  in  that  early  period  is  that  it 
was,  in  case  of  necessity,  permitted  as  an  exception 
to  a  general  rule.  This  fact  is  so  well  established 
that  it  were  needless  to  adduce  authorities  in  proof 
of  it.  ******  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose 
that  baptism  by  immersion  was  discontinued  when 
infant  baptism  became  generally  prevalent :  the  prac- 
tice of  immersion  continued  even  until  the  thirteenth 
or  fourteenth  century.  Indeed  it  has  never  been 
formally  abandoned  ;  but  is  still  the  mode  of  admin- 
istering baptism  in  the  Greek  Church  and  in  several 
of  the  Eastern  Churches."! 

This  testimony  is  worthy  of  special  consideration ; 
for  Coleman  often  takes  occasion  to  express  the  opin- 
ion  that  immersion 'is  not  essential  to  baptism.  He 
sometimes  steps  out  of  his  way  to  do  this,  but  the 
undeniable  facts  of  history  prompt  a  reluctant  decla- 
ration of  the  truth. 


*  Stuart  on  Mode  of  Baptism,  75,  76,  77. 
t  Pages  395,  396. 


132  THREE  REASONS, 

As  immersion  was  the  general  practice  for  more 
than  thirteen  hundred  years,  the  reader  may  be 
anxious  to  know  how  it  has  been,  to  so  lamentable 
an  extent,  superseded  by  sprinkling.  The  following 
quotations  explain  the  matter  : 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his**  History  of  Infant  Baptism," 
speaking  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  which 
continued  from  A.  D.  1558  to  1603,  says  :  *'  It  being 
allowed  to  weak  children  (tho'  strong  enough  to  be 
brought  to  church)  to  be  baptized  by  affusion,  many 
fond  ladies  and  gentlemen  first,  and  then  by  degrees 
the  common  people  would  obtain  the  favor  of  the 
Priest  to  have  their  children  pass  for  weak  children, 
too  tender  to  endure  dipping  in  water.  Especially 
(as  Mr.  Walker  observes)  if  some  instance  really  were, 
or  were  hut  fancied  or  framed,  of  some  child's  talcing 
kurt  by  it.  And  another  thing  that  had  a  greater  in- 
fluence than  this,  was ;  That  many  of  our  English 
Divines  and  other  people  had,  during  Queen  Mary's 
bloody  reign,  fled  into  Germany,  Switzerland,  etc., 
and  coming  back  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  they 
brought  with  them  a  great  love  to  the  customs  of 
those  Protestant  churches  wherein  they  had  so- 
journed :  And  especially  the  authority  of  Calvin,  and 
the  rules  which  he  had  established  at  Geneva,  had  a 
mighty  influence  on  a  great  number  of  our  people 
about  that  time.  Now  Calvin  had  not  only  given  his 
Dictate,  in  his  Institutions,  that  the  difference  is  of  no 
moment,  whether  he  that  is  baptized  be  dipt  all  over; 


win'    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  133 

and  if  so,  whether  thrice  or  o?ice ;  or  whether  he  be 
only  wetted  ivith  the  water  poured  on  him  :  But  he  had 
also  drawn  up  for  the  use  of  his  church  at  Geneva, 
(and  afterward  pubhshed  to  the  world,)  a  form  of 
administering  the  sacraments,  where,  when  he  comes 
to  order  the  act  of  baptizing,  he  words  it  thus  :  Then 
the  minister  of  haptlsm  pours  water  on  the  infant ;  say- 
ing, I  baptize  thee,  etc.  There  had  been,  as  I  said, 
some  Synods  in  some  Dioceses  oi  France  that  had 
spoken  of  affusion  without  mentioning  immersion  at 
all ;  that  being  the  common  practice  :  but  for  an 
OfiSce  or  Liturgy  of  any  church  ;  this  is,  I  believe, 
the  first  in  the  world  that  prescribes  afiiision  abso- 
lutely." 

Dr.  Wall  also  refers  to  the  influence  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  in  substituting  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling for  immersion.  That  Assembly  not  only  made 
a  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  but  a  "  Directory  for  the 
public  Worship  of  God,"  in  which  "pouring  or 
sprinkling"  is  declared  *'not  only  lawful,  but  suflfi- 
cient,  and  most  expedient."  Such  a  declaration 
surely  would  not  have  been  made,  if  "pouring  "  and 
•'sprinkling"  had  not  been  of  comparatively  recent 
origin  in  England.  This,  however,  by  way  of  pa- 
renthesis. Dr.  Wall  says  :  "  So  (parallel  to  the  rest 
of  their  reformations)  they  reformed  the  Font  into  a 
Basin.  This  Learned  Assembly  could  not  remem- 
ber that  Fonts  to  baptize  in,  had  been  always  used 
by  the  primitive  Christians,  long  before  the  beginning 
12 


134  THREE  REASONS, 

of  Popery  ;  and  ever  since  churches  were  built :  But 
that  sprinkling',  for  the  common  use  of  baptizing, 
was  really  introduced  (in  France  first,  and  then  in 
other  Popisli  countries)  in  times  of  Popery  :  And 
that  accordingly  all  those  countries  in  which  the 
usurped  power  of  the  Pope  is,  or  has  formerly  been, 
owned,  have  left  off  dipping  of  children  in  the  Font : 
But  that  all  other  countries  in  the  world  (which  had 
never  regarded  his  authority)  do  still  use  it :  And 
that  Basins,  except  in  case  of  necessity,  were  never 
used  by  Papists,  or  any  other  Christians  whatsoever, 
till  by  themselves.  The  use  was ;  The  minister  con- 
tinuing in  his  reading  Desk,  the  child  was  brought 
and  held  below  him  :  And  there  was  placed  for  that 
use  a  little  Basin  of  water  about  the  bigness  of  a 
syllabub  pot,  into  which  the  minister,  dipping  his 
fincrers,  and  then  holdino-  his  hand  over  the  face  of 
the  child,  some  drops  would  fall  from  his  fingers  on 
the  child's  face.  For  the  Directory  says,  it  is  not  only 
lawful,  hut  most  exjjedient  to  use  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling."* 

My  last  quotation,  in  vindication  of  the  *' truth  of 
history,"  is  taken  from  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia, 
edited  by  Sir  David  Brewster,  a  distinguished  Pedo- 
baptist.  It  contains  the  following  account  of  ** sprink- 
ling." ''  The  first  law  for  sprinkling  was  obtained 
in  the  following  manner :    Pope  Stephen  II,  being 

*  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  Part  II,  Chapter  ix. 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  1  35 

driven  from  Rome  by  Astolphus,  King  of  the  Lom- 
bards, in  753,  fled  to  Pepin,  who,  a  short  time  be- 
fore, had  usurped  the  crown  of  France.  While  he 
remained  there,  the  monks  of  Cressy,  in  Brittany, 
consulted  him,  whether  in  case  of  necessity,  baptism 
performed  by  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  in- 
fant would  be  lawful.  Stephen  rephed  that  it  would. 
But  though  the  truth  of  this  fact  should  be  allowed, 
which,  however,  some  Catholics  deny,  yet  pouring 
or  sjDrinkling  was  admitted  only  in  cases  of  necessity. 
It  was  not  till  the  year  1311,  that  the  legislature,  in 
a  council  held  at  Ravenna,  declared  immersion  or 
sprinkling  to  be  indifferent.  In  this  country,  [Scot- 
land], however,  sprinkling  was  never  practiced  in 
ordinary  cases  till  after  the  Reformation;  and  in 
England,  even  in  the  reign  of  Edward  YI,  trine  im- 
mersion was  commonly  observed.  But  during  the 
persecution  of  Mary,  many  persons,  most  of  whom 
were  Scotsmen,  fled  from  England  to  Geneva,  and 
there  greedily  imbibed  the  opinions  of  that  church. 
In  1556,  a  book  was  published  at  that  place,  contain- 
ing *  The  form  of  prayers  and  ministration  of  sacra- 
ments, approved  by  the  famous  and  godly-learned 
man,  John  Calvin,'  in  which  the  administrator  is  en- 
joined to  take  water  in  his  hand  and  lay  it  on  the 
child's  forehead.  These  Scottish  exiles,  who  had  re- 
nounced the  authority  of  the  Pope,  implicitly  ac- 
knowledged the  authority  of  Calvin ;  and  return- 
ing to  their  own  country,  with  John  Knox  at  their 


136  THREE  REASONS, 

head,  in  1559,  established  sprinkhng  in  Scotland. 
From  Scotland,  this  practice  made  its  way  into  Eng- 
land, in  the  reiun  of  Elizabeth  ;  but  was  not  author- 
ized  by  the  established  church."     Article  Baptiam. 

If  I  have  not  now  shown  that  immersion  was 
practiced  for  more  than  thirteen  centuries,  except  in 
cases  of  sickness  and  necessity,  it  is  impossible  for 
any  thing  to  be  shown.  The  man  who  is  not  con- 
vinced by  the  testimony  adduced  in  support  of  this 
fact,  would  not  be  ''persuaded  though  one  should 
rise  from  the  dead.*'  Such  a  man,  if  he  had  a  pur- 
pose to  accomplish  by  it,  would  deny  that  the  sun 
shone  for  the  first  thirteen  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era.  What  then  is  to  be  thought  of  those  Pedobap- 
tist  ministers  who  say  that  "  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
immersion  was  practiced  before  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury?" They  are  remarkable  men — remarkahle  either 
for  ignorance  or  a  want  of  candor.  I  do  not  deter- 
mine the  point  of  their  remarhahleness.  They  ought 
to  study,  at  least,  the  alphabetical  portions  of  Church 
History.  They  would  then  know,  that  until  the  last 
few  hundred  years,  immersion  was  the  general  rule, 
and  aspersion  the  exception.  They  would  learn  that 
at  one  period  the  propriety  of  a  copious  pouring 
of  water  on  the  entire  persons  of  the  sick,  on  their 
beds,  instead  of  baptism,  was  seriously  called  in 
question,  and,  by  some,  most  positively  denied. 
They  would  ascertain  (though  the  fact  would  greatly 
asionish  them)  that  many  more  infants  have  been 


"VVMr  1  AM  A  BAPTIST.  *     137 

immersed  than  ever  had  ine  operation  of  sprinkhno- 
o-r  pouring  performed  on  them.  The  man  who  de- 
nies this  fact,  knows  comparatively  nothing  of  eccle- 
siastical history.  Immersion,  however,  so  far  as  un- 
conscious infants  are  concerned,  is  no  better  than 
sprinkling.  Both  are  uncommanded  in  the  word  of 
God,  and  belong  to  the  large  family  of  human  tradi- 
tions. 

My  readers  must  decide  whether  my  second  rea- 
son for  being  a  Baptist,  is  valid.  To  me,  its  validity 
appears  perfectly  unquestionable.  I  am  a  Baptist 
BECAUSE  Baptists  consider  the  immersion  in  water, 
OF  A  believer  in  Christ,  essential  to  baptism — so 
essential  that  there  is  no  baptism  without  it. 

Before  I  proceed  to  give  my  third  reason  for  being 
a  Baptist,  it  is,  perhaps,  proper  that  I  briefly  notice 
the  most  prominent  Pedobaptist  objections  to  immer- 
sion.    A  brief  notice  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

1 .  John,  it  is  argued,  ha'ptized  not  in,  hut  at  Jordan. 

Episcopalians  and  Methodists  are  precluded  from  a 
resort  to  this  argument ;  for  the  "■  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,"  and  the  "  Discipline,"  both  teach  that  Jesus 
was  baptized  ''in  the  river  Jordan."  John  baptized 
in  the  wilderness.  Here  we  have  the  same  word  iw, 
the  representative  of  the  Greek  en.  How  would  it 
do  to  say  John  baptized  at  the  wilderness?  The 
Greek  is  surely  a  strange  language,  if  it  has  no 
preposition  which  means  in.  If  en  has  not  this 
meaning,  there  is  no  word  in  the  language  that  has. 


138  THREE    REASONS, 

Let  any  Greek  scholar  try  to  express,  in  Greek,  the 
idea  of  being  in  a  place,  in  a  house,  in  a  river,  etc., 
without  the  use  of  en.  The  ordinary  meaning  of  en, 
is  in,  and  of  eis,  into. 

2.  John,  it  is  said,  baptized  ''with  water." 

It  is  insisted  that  "with  water,"  denotes  that  the 
water  was  applied  in  baptism.  It  is  enough  to  say, 
in  reply  to  this  objection,  that  Baptists  never  immerse 
without  water.  John  speaks  of  baptism  in  water,  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  fire.  King  James's  Transla- 
tors, no  doubt,  rendered  en,  with,  to  make,  what  they 
considered,  an  emphatic  distinction  between  the  bap- 
tismal elements.  They  were  wrong.  Every  scholar 
knows  that  the  proper  rendering  is,  in  water.  The 
little  preposition  en,  acts  a  conspicuous  part  here, 
also.  It  is  the  same  word  already  defined.  It  is  as 
proper  to  say  that  John  baptized  with  the  wilderness, 
and  with  the  Jordan,  as  that  he  baptized  with  water. 
En  is  translated  in,  in  the  first  two  instances,  and 
why  should  it  be  rendered  with,  in  the  last  ?  Can 
any  scholar  give  a  good  reason?  But,  as  I  have 
said.  Baptists  do  not  immerse  without  water.  If  I 
say,  "the  clothes  were  washed  with  water,"  does  it 
follow  that  they  were  not  dipped  into  it  ?    Surely  not. 

3.  It  is  urged  with  great  confidence  that  three  thousand 
persons  could  not  have  been  immersed  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

It  is  supposed  that  water  could  not  be  had  for  the 
purpose.     Indeed !    Where  now  is  the  ''much  water  " 


Wnr   I    AM    A   BAPTIST.  139 

that  Dr.  Rice  found  necessary  for  the  "daily  ablu- 
tions "  of  the  Jews  ?  They  certainly  performed  their 
"  ablutions  "  at  home,  if  they  could  not  be  dispensed 
with  when  they  went  to  John's  baptism.  Jerusalem, 
according  to  Robinson,  "would  appear  always  to  have 
had  a  full  supply  of  water  for  its  inhabitants,  both  in 
ancient  and  modern  times.  In  the  numerous  sieges 
to  which,  in  all  ages,  it  has  been  exposed,  we  no- 
where read  of  any  want  of  water  within  the  city."* 
Where  people  can  live  there  is  water  enough  for 
purposes  of  immersion.  But  why  dwell  on  this  point? 
If  Jerusalem  had  been  situated  on  the  Mediterranean 
sea,  Pedobaptists  woulli  not  allow  eis  to  take  the  three 
thousand  converts  into  its  waters.  They  are  no  more 
willing  to  admit  immersion,  where  there  is  an  abun- 
dance of  water,  than  where  there  is  a  supposed 
scarcity. 

But  it  is  insisted  that  it  was  impossible  for  the 
three  thousand  converts  to  be  immersed  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  therefore  water  must  have  been 
sprinkled  or  poured  on  them.  I  answer,  it  takes 
about  as  much  time  to  sprinkle  as  it  does  to  immerse. 
Much  the  greater  portion  of  time,  in  modern  baptisms, 
is  occupied  in  repeating  the  words  of  the  baptismal 
ceremony.  If  it  is  said,  that  sprinkling  was  more 
expeditiously  performed  in  ancient  than  in  modern 
times,  I  have  an  equal  right  to  say  the  same  thing 

*  Biblical  Researches,  Vol.  I,  p.  479. 


140  THREE    REASONS, 

of  immersion.  If  the  apostles  alone  baptized  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  (which,  however,  cannot  be  proved,) 
they  could  have  easily  immersed  the  three  thousand.* 
If  Pedobaptists  deny  this,  let  them  account  for  the 
historical  fact  that  Austin  the  monk,  sent  by  Pope 
Gregory  the  Great  into  England  in  the  year  597,  to 
convert  the  inhabitants,  **  consecrated  the  river  Swale, 
near  York,  in  which  he  caused  ten  thousand  of  his 
converts  to  be  baptized  in  one  day."  They  were 
immersed. 

4.  It  is  thought  to  militate  against  immersion  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  he  'poured  out. 

If  so,  it  militates  equally  against  sprinkling.  If 
pouring  is  baptism,  why  is  not  the  Spirit  sometimes 
said  to  be  baptized  ?  He  is  said  to  be  poured  out ! 
There  is  as  much  difference  between  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Spirit,  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  as  there 
is  between  the  pouring  of  water  into  a  baptistery  and 
the  immersion  of  a  person  in  that  water.  Those 
baptized  "with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  or  rather  **m  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  were  placed  under  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  just  as  a  person  baptized  in  water  is  put 
under  the  influence  of  the  water.  If  the  Pedobap- 
tist  reasoning  on  this  subject  is  correct,  what  follows? 
Why,  that  as  the  Spirit  is  said  to  be  *'  given,"  to 
"fall  upon,"  to  "testify,"  to  "fill,",  to  "write,"  etc., 

*  The  writer  once  saw  the  venerable  Reuben  Ross,  when 
more  than  sixty  years  of  age,  baptize  sixty-six  persons  in 
thirty-three  minutes;  and  there  was  no  indecent  haste. 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  141 

therefore,  giving,  falling  upon,  testifying,  filling, 
writing,  etc.,  are  all  baptism.     Surely  this  will  not  do. 

5.  Saul  of  Tarsus,  it  is  affirmed,  was  baptized  stand- 
ing vp. 

The  participle  anastas  is  sometimes  so  translated, 
but  in  numerous  instances  denotes  the  bemnninc^  of  a 
process  by  which  a  thing  is  done.  It  is  said,  (Luke, 
i,  39,)  ''And  Mary  arose  (ayiastasa — same  word  with 
a  feminine  termination,)  in  those  days,  and  went  into 
the  hill  country,"  etc.  Did  Mary  stand  up  and  go? 
Does  not  anastasa  here  denote  the  beginning  of  the 
process  by  which  she  reached  the  hill  country  ?  In 
Luke,  XV,  18,  the  prodigal  son  says,  "  I  will  arise 
(anastas)  and  go  to  my  father,"  etc.,  and  in  verse 
20  it  is  said:  *'And  he  arose,  [anastas,)  and  came 
to  his  father."  Did  he  stand  up  and  go  to  his  father? 
Was  not  the  anastas  the  commencement  of  the  re- 
turnino^  movement?  He  arose  and  returned  to  his 
father.  Now  Luke  wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
Is  it  not  reasonable,  then,  to  believe,  that  when  he 
says  (Acts,  ix,  18,)  that  Saul  arose  [anastas)  and 
was  baptized,  he  means  by  anastas  the  beginning  of  a 
process  necessary  to  his  baptism?  He  evidently  arose 
that  he  might  be  immersed;  but  no  rising  up — no 
anastas — was  necessary,  if  water  was  to  be  poured  or 
sprinkled  on  him.  His  immersion  implied  the  move- 
ment indicated  by  anastas,  while  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling could  imply  no  such  movement.  In  the  thirty- 
ninth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  it  is  said:  "And 


142  THREE    REASONS, 

Peter  arose  (anasias)  and  went  with  them" — that  is, 
to  Joppa.  He  did  not  stand  up  still  and  go ;  but  he 
arose  as  the  first  thing  to  be  done  in  getting  to  Joppa, 
just  as  Saul  arose  as  the  first  thing  to  be  done  in  get- 
ting to  a  suitable  place  for  immersion.  But  I  shall 
let  Saul,  who  afterward  became  Paul,  settle  this 
matter  himself.  In  Romans,  vi,  4,  includino^  him- 
self  with  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  he  says:  ''We 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism.'*  If  Saul  was 
buried  by  baptism,  he  was  immersed.  There  is  no 
burial  in  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

6.  It  is  argued  that  the  question,  Can  any  man  for- 
hid  water  that  these  should  not  he  baptized?  (Acts,  x, 
47,)  intimates  that  the  ivater  ivas  to  he  brought,  etc. 

This  objection  to  immersion  is  almost  a  laughable 
one.  The  question  only  means.  Can  any  one  forbid 
the  baptism  of  these  Gentiles,  who  have  received 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  the  Jews  ?  Baptist  minis- 
ters, in  receiving  candidates  for  baptism,  often  say 
to  the  Churches,  **  Can  any  man  forbid  water,"  etc. 
Does  this  imply  that  the  water  is  to  be  brought  in  a 
"bowl"  or  ''pitcher?" 

7.  It  is  said  that  the  jailer  coidd  not  have  been 
immersed  in  prison.     (See  Acts,  xvi,  30-34.) 

Baptists  do  not  say  he  was  immersed  in  prison. 
The  jailer  brought  out  Paul  and  Silas  from  the  prison 
before  he  said,  "  Sirs,  what  must  I  do,"  etc.  ?  Then 
they  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  him,  and  to  all 
that  weie  in  his  house.     It  seems,  then,  that  they 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  143 

were  in  his  house,  (verse  32).  In  verse  34  it  is 
said,  "And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his 
house,"  etc.  The  thirty-third  verse  contains  an 
account  of  the  baptism.  They  left  the  house  when 
the  baptism  took  place,  and  they  went  back  into  it 
after  the  baptism  was  over.  Why  did  they  leave  the 
house  to  sprinkle  or  pour  water  ?  Was  it  necessary  ? 
Evidently  not ;  but  it  was  necessary  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  apostolic  baptism. 

8.  Pedohaptists  urge  that  the  baptism  of  the  Israel- 
ites unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  is  irrecon- 
cilable ivith  the  idea  of  immersion. 

In  being  baptized  into  or  unto  Christ,  we  publicly 
assume  him  as  our  leader.  The  Israelites,  in  beins: 
baptized  unto  Moses,  publicly  assumed  him  as  their 
leader.  The  analogy  of  their  passage  through  the 
sea,  with  the  cloud  above  them,  to  Christian  immer- 
sion, no  doubt  suggested  to  Paul  the  language  he  has' 
employed.  There  was  no  literal  baptism — and  there 
was  no  pouring  or  sprinkling.  How  often  is  Psalm 
Ixxvii,  17,  referred  to,  to  prove  that  the  Israelites 
had  water  poured  on  them.  Unfortunately  for  this 
view  of  the  matter  it  is  said,  *'  The  clouds  poured 
out  water.  It  was  a  cloud  that  Paul  refers  to — the 
miraculous  cloud,  the  symbol  of  the  Divine  presence. 
This  cloud  had  just  as  much  water  in  it  as  that  on 
which  the  Savior  rode  triumphantly  to  heaven,  and 
no  more.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  Israelites 
were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  secu 


144  THREE  REASONS, 

In  literal  baptism  the  person  is  baptized  only  in  water. 
The  water  envelops,  surrounds  the  individual.  In 
the  case  of  the  Israelites  it  took  the  sea  (which 
was  as  a  wall  on  each  each  side)  and  the  cloud 
(which  was  above)  to  complete  the  envelopment. 
He  who  does  not  see  that  baptize  is  figuratively- 
applied  to  the  Israelites,  because  the  word  literally 
means  immerse,  is  not  to  be  reasoned  with.  If  it 
could  be  conceived  that  the  miraculous  cloud  poured 
forth  water,  and  that  the  pouring  constituted  the 
baptism,  what  had  the  sea  to  do  in  the  baptismal 
operation?  Absolutely  nothing:  but  Paul  says, ''our 
fathers  were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea. 

9.  It  is  contended  that  the  phrase,  "divers  ivashings,^' 
Hebrews,  ix,  10,  [in  the  original  baptisms)  indicates 
more  baptisms  than  one. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  Macknight,  a  Presby- 
terian translator,  renders  the  phrase  **  divers  immer- 
sions." The  Mosaic  law  required  unclean  persons 
*'to  bathe  themselves  in  water'' — it  required  ** unclean 
vessels  to  be  put  into  water,''  and  it  said,  "all  that 
abideth  not  the  fire  ye  shall  make  go  through  the 
water."  If  it  is  not  conceded  that  these  regulations 
involved  ''divers  immersions,"  it  ought  not  to  be 
admitted  that  the  sun  rises  in  the  East.  Moreover, 
Paul,  in  the  same  chapter  of  Hebrews,  uses  rantizo, 
to  sprinkle,  three  times.  If  by  "divers  washings" 
he  included  sprinklings,  why  did  he  use  a  different 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  145 

word  altogether,  when,  as  every  body  allows,  he 
intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  sprmklmg?  Can 
any  Doctor  of  Divinity  tell  ? 

10.  Immersion,  it  is  affirmed,  is  indecent,  and  dan- 
gerous. 

What  says  Richard  Watson,  in  his  **  Theological 
Institutes,"  which  are  so  highly  approved  by  his 
Methodist  brethren?  Here  is  his  language:  "With 
all  the  arrangements  of  modern  times,  baptism  by 
immersion  is  not  a  decent  practice :  there  is  not  a 
female,  perhaps,  who  submits  to  it,  who  has  not  a 
great  previous  struggle  with  her  delicacy."  Again: 
Even  if  immersion  had  been  the  original  mode  of 
baptizing,  we  should,  in  the  absence  of  any  com- 
mand on  the  subject,  direct  or  implied,  have  thought 
the  church  at  liberty  to  accommodate  the  manner  of 
applying  water  to  the  body  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity, 
in  which  the  essence  of  the  rite  consists,  to  different 
climates  and  manners ;  but  it  is  satisfactory  to  dis- 
cover that  all  the  attempts  made  to  impose  upon 
Christians  a  practice  repulsive  to  the  feelings,  dangerous 
to  the  health,  and  offensive  to  delicacy,  is  destitute  of 
all  Scriptural  authority,  and  of  really  primitive  prac- 
tice."* 

Immersion  not  a  ''decent  practice  !"  And  yet  the 
Methodist  ])iscipline  authorizes  it !  It  authorizes  an 
indecent   practice,    does   it  ?     Ay,    more :    it   recog- 


*Vol.  II,  pp.  648,  660. 
13 


146  THREE  REASONS, 

nizes  immersion  as  valid  baptism,  and  its  validity 
must  arise  from  the  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ. 
It  cannot  be  valid  unless  he  has  appointed  it.  Will 
Methodists  dare  say  that  an  appointment  of  his  is 
not  a  "decent  practice?"  Will  they  say  that  this 
** practice"  is  ''repulsive  to  the  feelings,"  and  "of- 
fensive to  delicacy?"  It  may  be  ** repulsive  to  the 
feelings"  of  the  enemies  of  Christ  to  do  what  he  has 
commanded,  but  it  is  not  to  the  feelings  of  his 
friends;  for  they  have  not  the  spurious  "delicacy" 
referred  to.  No  *' female,"  it  seems,  "submits  to" 
immersion  "without  a  great  previous  struggle  with 
her  delicacy  !"  Ah,  indeed !  Baptists  who  practice 
immersion  know  nothing  of  this  "great  struggle." 
Pedobaptists,  however,  find  it  much  easier  to  dis- 
suade "  females  "  from  being  immersed  by  referring 
to  the  indelicacy  of  immersion,  than  by  attempting 
to  prove,  in  honorable  argument,  that  immersion 
is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  The  reason  is,  the 
pride,  corruption,  and  carnality  of  the  heart,  are 
readily  enlisted  by  an  artful  appeal  to  "  delicacy," 
"  decency,"  etc.  But  may  Heaven  have  mercy  on 
the  man  who  makes  such  an  appeal ! 

It  is  time  to  speak  and  write  plainly.  I  say,  then, 
that  the  man  who  sees  anything  "indecent,"  "in- 
delicate," or  "vulgar"  in  immersion — ay,  in  the 
immersion  of  "females,"  is  an  "indecent"  man. 
He  is  a  man  of  "indelicate"  feelings.  The  vulgarity 
is  in  the  man — not  in  the  immersion.     Such  a  man 


WHY   I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  147 

ma}'  write  "Theological  Institutes,"  or,  like  Dr.  Sum- 
meis,  he  may  write  a  vulnerable  book  on  baptism, 
or,  hke  Dr.  Lee,  he  may  make  the  indecency  of  im- 
mersion the  theme  of  newspaper  articles — but  he  is 
a  vulgar-minded  man.  Immodest  persons  often  make 
the  greatest  pretensions  to  modesty,  and  the  reason 
is  they  deem  it  necessary  to  make  jpretensions  because 
they  are  so  utterly  destitute  of  what  they  pretend 
to  hcive.  As  to  the  charge  that  "immersion  is 
dangerous"  I  dispose  of  it  with  the  remark  that,  it 
is  notoriously  untrue. 

In  the  foregoing  extract  from  Watson,  where  he 
refers  to  the  "  church  as  at  liberty  to  accommodate 
the  manner  of  applying  water,"  etc.,  the  discerning 
reader  will  detect  the  germ  of  Popery.  Ah!  that 
*'  liberty  to  accommodate  !"  etc.  How  infinitely  mis- 
cliievous  has  been  its  operation.  The  ''hberty'* 
assumed  "  to  accommodate,"  etc.,  that  is,  to  deviate 
from  the  order  estabhshed  by  Christ,  resulted  in  the 
rise  of  the  Romish  hierarchy,  and  has  led  to  the 
formation  of  every  Pedobaptist  church  under  heaven. 
Tliis  fact  is  intensely  suggestive. 

I  have  now  examined  all  the  prominent  objections 
of  Pedobaptists  to  immersion,  and  what  weight  is 
there  in  those  objections  ?  They  are  as  light  as  the 
thin  air — lighter  than  vanity.  The  objections  them- 
selves indicate  the  weakness  of  the  cause  they  are 
intended  to  support.  An  examination  of  them  only 
deepens  the  conviction  of  my  mind  that  the  immer- 


148  THREE    REASOxN'S, 

sion  in  water  of  a  believer  is  essential  to  baptism — 
so  essential  that  there  is  no  baptism  without  it. 

III.    I  AM  A  Baptist    because    Baptists   adopt 

THE  FORM  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  RECOGNIZED  IN 

THE  New  Testament — that  is  to  say,  the  con- 
'jregational  form  of  government. 

There  are  three  prominent  forms  of  church  gov- 
ernment indicated  by  the  terms  Episcopacy,  Presby- 
terianism,  and  Conofreo-ationalism. 

Episcopacy  recognizes  the  right  of  Bishops  to  pre- 
side over  districts  of  country,  and  one  of  its  funda- 
mental doctrines  is,  that  a  Bishop  is  officially  superior 
to  an  elder.  Of  course  a  modern  Bishop  has  under 
his  charge  the  **  inferior  clergy;"  for  it  is  insisted 
that  the  **  ordaining  power,"  and  *' the  right  to 
rule"  belong  to  the  Episcopal  office.  Those  who 
adopt  the  Episcopal  form  of  government  believe  that 
there  are  three  orders  in  the  ministry — namely,  dea- 
cons, elders  and  bishops.  The  modern  application 
of  the  term  Bishop  to  a  man  who  has  under  his 
charge  a  district  of  country,  is  very  objectionable. 
It  has  almost  banished  from  Christendom  the  idea 
originally  attached  to  the  term.  In  apostolic  times. 
Bishop  and  Pastor  were  terms  of  equivalent  import. 
The  elders  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  are  termed 
(Acts,  XX,  24,)  overseers — in  the  original  ejyiscopos — 
the  word  generally  translated  "bishop,"  if,  indeed, 
''bishop"  may  be    called    a   translation.     It   is   so 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  149 

evident  from  the  Scriptures  that  bishops  and  elders 
are  identical  that  it  is  the  wildest  folly  to  call  it  in 
question.  This,  however,  is  not  the  place  to  enlarge 
on  this  topic. 

Presbyterianism  recognizes  two  classes  of  elders — 
preaching  elders  and  ruling  elders.  The  pastor  and 
rulinof  elders  of  a  conc^rej^ation  constitute  what  is 
called  the  "Session  of  the  church."  The  "Session" 
transacts  the  business  of  the  church,  receives,  dis- 
misses, excludes  members,  etc.  From  the  decisions 
of  a  Session  there  is  an  appeal  to  Presbytery,  which 
is  composed  of  preaching  and  ruling  elders.  From 
the  action  of  a  Presbytery  there  lies  an  appeal  to 
Synod ;  and  from  the  adjudications  of  Synod  there  is 
an  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly,  whose  decrees 
are  both  final  and  irresistible.  These  Presbyteries, 
Synods,  and  General  Assemblies,  are  often  termed 
"church  courts,"  the  "judicatories  of  the  church," 
etc.  The  friends  of  Presbyterianism,  no  doubt,  deem 
their  form  of  government  most  expedient  and  satis- 
factory; but  to  believe  it  Scriptural,  must  be  as  diffi- 
cult as  to  admit  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  cir- 
cumcision. Where  is  it  intimated,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  churches  composed  Presbyteries,  and  Pres- 
byteries Synods,  and  Synods  General  Assemblies, 
and  that  there  is  an  appeal  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher  "courts?"  While  Presbyterians,  therefore, 
talk  and  write  about  the  expediency  of  their  form  of 
goveniment,  they  ought  to  say  nothing  of  its  Scrip- 


160  THREE    REASONS, 

turality.  It  is  unquestionably  a  better  government 
than  the  Episcopal;  but  it  is  not  the  government 
established  by  Jesus  Christ.  It  will  be  readily  seen 
that  Episcopacy  and  Presbyterianism  imply  that  many 
local  congregations  enter  representatively  into  the 
composition  of  what  is  termed  ''the  church."  Hence 
we  often  hear  of  the  **  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States  of  America,"  the  *'  Presbyterian  Church  of 
the  United  States,"  etc.  The  local  religious  com- 
munities in  all  parts  of  the  nation  where  Episcopacy 
prevails,  are  considered  as  constituting  the  '*  Episco- 
pal Church."  So  of  Presbyterianism.  So  of  Meth- 
odism, North  and  South.  The  Bai^tht  Church  of  the 
United  States  is  a  phrase  which  ought  never  to  be 
used — which  can  never  be  used  with  propriety.  There 
are  thousands  of  Baptist  churches  in  the  United 
States,  but  they  do  not  constitute  one  great  Baptist 
Church  of  the  United  States.  They  differ  materially 
and  fundamentally  from  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  and 
Methodist  churches.  They  are  all  independent  of 
one  another,  so  far  as  the  exercise  of  governmental 
power  is  concerned.  Every  local  congregation,  united 
in  church  fellowship,  is  as  complete  a  church  as  ever 
existed,  and  is  perfectly  competent  to  do  whatever  a 
church  can  of  right  do.  No  one  congregation  is  at 
liberty  to  interfere  with  the  affairs  of  another.  Every 
Baptist  church  is  an  independent  and  a  pure  de- 
mocracy. The  idea  of  independence  should  be  ear- 
nestly cherished,  while  that  of  consolidation  should 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  151 

be  as  earnestly  deprecated.  Agreeably  to  the  view 
now  presented,  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  of  the 
churches  of  Judea,  the  churches  of  Galatia,  the  churches 
of  Macedonia,  the  churches  of  Asia,  etc.,  etc.,  but  we 
never  read  of  the  church  of  Judea,  the  church  of  Gal- 
atia, etc.  There  is  not  the  remotest  reference  to  a 
church  commensurate  with  a  province,  a  kingdom,  or 
an  empire.  This  view  of  church  extension  and  con- 
solidation was  j!905^apostolic,  palpably  so.  There 
are  no  people  who  recognize  more  fully  than  Bap- 
tists the  fact  that  the  phrase,  *'  kingdom  of  Christ," 
implies  that  he  is  King — he  is  Monarch — he  is  Au- 
tocrat. In  ordaining  the  laws  of  his  kingdom  he  did 
not  allow  the  impertinent  interference  of  men  or 
angels.  There  is.no  human  or  angehc  legislation  in 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Churches  organized  accord- 
ing to  the  New  Testament  model  are  required  to 
execute  the  laws  of  Christ.  To  do  this  they  must  of 
course  first  decide  what  the  laws  of  Christ  are ;  and 
they  are  so  plain  that  there  need  be  no  misappre- 
hension. It  may  be  said,  therefore,  that  the  churches 
of  Christ  are  invested  with  judicial  and  executive 
power,  but  they  have  no  legislative  power.  Ecclesi- 
astical legislation — such  as  is  allowed  in  many  Pedo- 
baptist  organizations — is  perfectly  abhorrent  to  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel.  Churches  are  executive  de- 
mocracies, organized  to  carry  out  the  sovereign  will 
of  their  Head.  I  cannot  here  resist  my  inclination 
to  express  my  views  in  the  language  of  my  friend 


162  THREE   REASONS, 

and  brother,  Dr.  J.  M.  Peck.  Referring  to  Baptists, 
he  says : 

**  Their  theory  of  church  government  embraces 
two  great  and  apparently  opposite  principles  : 

*^  First. — That  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  in  its  visible 
form  on  earth,  is  a  pure  monarchy.  Christ  is  King 
and  Lawgiver.  He  needs  not  the  aid  of  man,  Aor 
will  he  endure  human  legislation  in  any  form.  He 
has  not  merely  given  a  few  vague  and  general  rules, 
and  left  his  people  to  work  out  all  the  discordant 
plans  of  government  that  prevail  at  this  moment  in 
Christendom.  Both  by  precept  and  in  the  inspired 
records  of  the  primitive  churches,  there  are  examples 
for  every  class  of  cases  that  necessity  ever  requires. 
The  legislation  in  his  kingdom  is  all  Divine, 

*'  Secondly. — His  kingdom,  in  its  organized  staDe 
of  small  communities,  each  managing  its  own  affairs 
in  its  own  vicinage,  is  a  ^J2/7*e  democracy.  The 
PEOPLE — THE  WHOLE  PEOPLE,  in  cacli  Community, 
choose  their  own  officers — receive  and  expel  mem- 
bers— conduct  all  business  as  a  body  politic — decide 
on  all  questions  of  discipline,  and  observe  all  the 
institutions  of  Christ.  Were  they  to  institute  a  rep- 
resentative, or  any  other  form  of  government,  they 
would  depart  from  the  law  book,  and  soon  be  in- 
volved in  as  many  difficulties  as  their  neighbors."* 

*  Christian  Repository,  Vol.  II,  pp.  47,  48,  The  writer 
knows  of  no  man  better  qualified  to  write  a  book  on  the 
"Distinctive  Principles  of  Baptists"  than  Rev.  J.  M.  Peck 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  i  53 

Congregationalism  antagonizes  with  Episcopacy 

AND  PrESBYTERIANISM,  AND  DISTINCTLY  RECOGNIZES 
THESE  TRUTHS  : 

1.  That  the  governmental  power  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  people. 

It  resides  with  the  laity,  in  contradistinction  from 
Bishops  and  Elders ;  I  mean  to  say  that  Bishops  and 
Elders  are  incapable  of  doing  anything  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  laity. 

2.  The  right  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  a 
church  to  rule. 

When  the  will  of  the  majority  is  ascertained,  it 
becomes  the  minority  to  submit. 

3.  That  the  power  of  a  church  cannot  he  transferred 
or  alienated,  and  that  church  action  is  final. 

The  power  of  a  church  cannot  be  delegated. 
There  may  be  messengers  of  a  church,  but  there 
cannot  be  delegates.  No  church  can  empower  any 
man,  or  body  of  men,  to  do  anything  which  will  im- 
pair its  independency,  or  militate  against  its  demo- 
cratic sovereignty. 

These  are  highly  important  principles,  and  while 
the  existence  of  the  Congregational  form  of  church 
government  depends  upon  their  recognition  and  appli- 
cation, it  is  an  inquiry  of  vital  moment :  Does  the 
New  Testament  recognize  these  principles  ?     For  if 

Such  a  volume  from  his  pen  is  a  desideratum,  and  it  would 
doubtless  have  an  extensive  circulation.  It  is  hoped  that  his 
attention  will  be  directed  to  this  subject. 


154  THREE    REASONS, 

•t  does  not,  whatever  may  be  said  in  commendation 
of  them,  they  possess  no  obligatory  force.  I  refer  to 
the  New  Testament,  because  it  would  be  unjustifiable 
to  go  to  the  Old,  to  ascertain  the  form  of  government 
established  for  Christian  churches.  Jesus  Christ, 
in  instructing  the  apostles  how  to  train  the  baptized 
disciples,  says  :  "Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.''  He  does  not  say, 
"  all  things  that  Moses  commanded,"  but  "  all  things 
whatsoever  /  have  commanded."  The  apostles  en- 
joyed his  teachings  during  his  ministry,  and  the 
** forty  days"  intervening  between  his  resurrection 
and  ascension,  he  employed  in  "speaking  to  them  of 
the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God."  It 
may  be  said  that  Paul  was  not  with  Christ  during  his 
ministry,  and  did  not  enjoy  the  advantage  of  the 
"forty  days'  "  instruction.  This  is  true,  but  his  de- 
ficiencies, as  compared  with  the  other  apostles,  were 
evidently  supplied  by  direct  revelations  from  Heaven. 
It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  apostles  them- 
selves, had  no  discretio7iary  power.  They  were  to 
teach  an  observance  of  "  all  things  "  their  Lord  and 
Master  had  "  commanded  " — no  more",  no  less.  What- 
ever they  taught  under  the  influence  of  inspiration, 
must  have  accorded  with  the  teachings  of  the  Savior. 
Whatever  they  did,  as  inspired  men,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  done  by  him. 

Does    the    New   Testament    then    inculcate    the 
foundation-principle  of  Congregationalism  ;   namely, 


■WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  155 

that  the  governmental  power  of  a  church  is  with  the 
people,  the  members?     Let  us  see  : 

It  was  certainly  the  province  of  the  apostolic  churches 
to  admit  members  into  their  communion. 

In  Rom.  xiv,  1,  it  is  written:  "  Him  that  is  weak 
in  the  faith  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputa- 
tions." What  is  the  meaning  of  the  first  clause  of 
this  verse  ?  Its  import  is  obviously  this  :  Receive 
into  your  fellowship,  and  treat  as  a  Christian,  the 
man  who  is  weak  in  faith."  The  paraphrase  of 
Barnes  is:  **  Admit  to  your  society  or  fellowship; 
receive  him  kindly,"  etc.  There  is  unquestionably  a 
command — "Receive  ye."  To  whom  is  this  com- 
mand addressed  ?  To  Bishops  ?  It  is  not.  To  the 
**  Session  of  the  Church,"  composed  of  the  Pastor 
and  "  Ruling  Elders  ?"  No.  To  whom  then  ?  To 
the  very  persons  to  whom  the  Epistle  was  addressed, 
and  it  was  written  "to  all  that  be  in  Rome,  beloved 
of  God,  called  to  the  saints."  No  ingenuity  can  tor- 
ture this  language  into  a  command  given  to  the 
officers  of  the  church  in  Rome.  The  members  of 
the  church,  whose  designation  was  "saints,"  were 
addressed  and  commanded  to  "receive  the  weak  in 
faith."  It  was  their  business  to  decide  who  should 
be  admitted  into  their  religious  community ;  and, 
Paul,  under  the  impulses  of  inspiration,  says  :  "Him 
that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive  ye."  It  was,  of 
course,  their  duty  to  withhold  their  fellowship  from 
those  who  had  no  faith. 


156  THREE    REASONS, 

The  right  of  the  apostohc  churches  to  exclude 
members  from  their  fellowship,  evidently  implied 
their  right  to  receive  members  into  their  fellow- 
ship. It  is  inconceivable  that  they  had  the  right  to 
exclude,  and  not  the  right  to  receive  members. 

I  now  'proceed  to  show  that  the  New  Testament  churches 
had  the  right  to  exclude  unworthy  members,  and  thai 
they  exercised  that  right. 

In  1  Cor.  V,  1 — 5,  we  read  as  follows  :  "  It  is  re- 
ported commonly  that  there  is  fornication  among 
you,  and  such  fornication  as  is  not  so  much  as  named 
among  the  Gentiles,  that  one  should  have  his  father's 
wife.  And  ye  are  puffed  up,  and  have  not  rather 
mourned,  that  he  that  hath  done  this  deed  might  be 
taken  away  from  among  you.  For  I  verily,  as  absent 
in  body,  but  present  in  spirit,  have  judged  already 
as  though  I  were  present,  concerning  him  that  hath 
so  done  this  deed,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  when  ye  are  gathered  together,  and  my 
spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to 
deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day 
of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  while  Paul  "judged  " 
that  the  incestuous  man  ought  to  be  excluded  from 
the  church,  he  did  not  exclude  him.  There  are  those 
in  these  latter  days,  who  are  called  ministers  of 
Christ,  who,  if  they  had  lived  then,  might  have  ex- 
cluded him,  if  the  Corinthian  Church,  knowing  its 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  157 

prerogative,  had  not  protested  against  any  infringe- 
ment of  its  sovereignty,  by  so  arbitrary  an  exercise 
of  ministerial  power.  The  apostle  Paul,  however, 
did  not  exclude  the  guilty  man.  He  had  no  right  to 
do  so.  He  did  not  claim  the  right.  Hence,  when 
he  said  to  the  •*  Churches  of  Galatia,"  *'I  would 
they  were  cut  off  who  trouble  you,"  he  did  not  cut 
them  off,  though  he  desired  it  to  be  done,  and  advised 
that  it  should  be  done. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  too,  that  the  members  of 
the  Corinthian  Church  could  not,  in  their  individual 
capacity,  exclude  the  incestuous  man.  It  was  neces- 
sary to  their  action  in  the  premises,  that  they  should 
be  "  gathered  together."  They  must  assemble  as  a 
church,  and  exemplify  the  spirit  of  a  pure  democracy. 
Thus  assembling,  "the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  was  to  be  with  them.  They  were  to  act  by 
his  authority,  and  execute  his  will ;  for  he  makes  it 
incumbent  on  his  churches  to  administer  discipline. 
In  the  last  verse  of  the  chapter  referred  to,  Paul 
says :  "  Put  away  from  among  yourselves  that 
wicked  person."  Here  is  a  command,  given  by  an 
inspired  man,  requiring  the  exclusion  of  an  unworthy 
member  from  the  church,  at  Corinth.  To  whom  was 
the  command  addressed  ?  To  the  official  members 
of  the  church?  No,  but  "  unto  the  church  of  God, 
which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in 
Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints." 


163  THREE    REASONS, 

The  right  of  a  church  to  exclude  fiom  its  com- 
munion, disorderly  persons,  is  recognized  2  Thess. 
iii,  6,  "Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw 
yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  dis- 
orderly," etc.  This  command  was  addressed  "to 
the  church  of  the  Thessalonians."  To  "withdraw" 
from  a  "disorderly  brother,"  is  the  same  thing  as  to 
exclude  him.  There  is  a  cessation  of  church  fellow- 
ship. 

I  have  not  referred  to  Matthew,  xviii,  17,  because 
I  shall  notice  it  in  another  place.  The  reader  will 
see,  upon  examination,  that  the  passage  clearly  im- 
plies the  power  of  "the  church"  to  perform  the  act 
of  excommunication,  by  which  the  member  cut  off, 
becomes  as  a  "heathen  man,  and  a  publican." 

The  apostolic  churches  had  the  power  and  the  right  to 
restore  excluded  members  loho  gave  satisfactory  evidences 
of  p)enitence. 

In  2  Cor.  ii,  6-8,  the  "incestuous  man"  is  again 
referred  to,  as  follows  :  "  SuflScient  to  such  a  man  is 
this  punishment,  which  was  inflicted  of  many.  So 
that  contrariwise  ye  ought  rather  to  forgive  him,  and 
comfort  him,  lest  perhaps  such  an  one  should  be 
swallowed  up  without  overmuch  sorrow.  Wherefore 
I  beseech  you  that  ye  would  confirm  your  love  toward 
him."  The  apostle  manages  this  case  with  the  greatest 
tenderness  and  delicacy.     He  refers  to  the  excluded 


WHY    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  169 

member,  without  the  least  reference  to  the  diigrace- 
ful  offense  for  which  he  was  exchided.  "Sufficient," 
says  he,  "is  this  punishment,"  etc.  That  is,  the 
object  of  the  excommunication  had  been  accom- 
pHshed.  The  church  had  shown  its  determination 
not  to  connive  at  sin,  and  the  excluded  member  had 
become  penitent.  But  the  point  under  consideration 
is,  that  the  apostle  advised  the  restoration  of  the 
penitent  offender.  Paul  could  no  more  restore  him 
to  the  church  than  he  could  exclude  him  from  it,  in 
the  first  instance;  but  he  says:  "I  beseech  you  that 
ye  would  confirm  your  love  toward  him."  The 
power  to  restore  was  Avith  the  church,  and  Paul 
solicits  an  exercise  of  that  power.  The  great  apostle, 
in  saying,  "  I  beseech  you,''  etc.,  bows  to  the  majesty 
of  democratic  church  sovereignty.  He  virtually  ad- 
mits that  nothing  could  be  done  unless  the  church 
chose  to  act. 

In  this  connection,  one  fact  should  be  carefully 
observed :  The  power  of  the  Corinthian  church  to 
restore  this  excluded  member,  is  unquestionable. 
The  fact  which  deserves  notice,  is  that  the  power  in 
the  apostolic  churches  to  restore  excluded  members, 
implies  the  power  of  receiving  members,  and  also  the 
power  of  excommunicating.  Kow,  if  the  N^ew  Tes- 
tament churches  had  the  power  and  the  right  to  do 
these  three  things,  they  must  have  had  the  power 
and  the  right  to  transact  any  other  business  coming 
before  them.     There  surely  can  be  nothing  of  more 


160  THREE  RExlSONS, 

vital  importance  to  the  existence  and  the  interests 
of  a  church  than  the  reception,  exclusion,  and  resto- 
ration of  members.  *^here  are  no  three  acts  whose 
influence  on  the  organic  structure  of  a  church  is  so 
great,  and  these  acts  the  apostolic  churches  undoubt- 
edly performed.  Here  I  might  let  the  argument  for 
the  foundation  principle  of  Congregationalism  rest; 
but  there  is  other  proof  of  the  New  Testament  re- 
cognition of  that  principle. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
there  is  an  account  of  the  election  of  Matthias  to  the 
apostleship.  He  was  to  succeed  Judas,  the  traitor. 
The  most  natural  inference  is  that  Matthias  was 
chosen  by  the  "  one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples/' 
mentioned  verse  15.  These  disciples  were,  no  doubt, 
the  church  to  which  the  three  thousand  converts  were 
added  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  laity  must  have 
been  held  in  high  estimation  by  Peter,  if  called  on  in 
conjunction  with  the  apostles  themselves  to  elect  a 
successor  to  Judas. 

In  Acts,  vi,  there  is  reference  to  the  circumstances 
which  originated  the  deacon's  ofiSce,  and  also  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  first  deacons  were  appointed. 
We  read  as  follows:  ''And  in  those  days,  when  the 
number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose 
a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews, 
because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily 
ministration.  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude 
of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  reasoD 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  161 

that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God,  and  serve 
tables.  Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you 
seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  busi- 
ness. But  Ave  will  give  ourselves  continually  to 
prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  word.  And  the  say- 
ng  pleased  the  whole  multitude;  and  they  chose  Ste- 
phen, a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon,  and 
Parmenas,  and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Antioch,  whom 
they  set  before  the  apostles:  and  when  they  had 
prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them." 

I  have  italicised  the  words  in  these  verses  to  which 
I  call  special  attention.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  apos- 
tles referred  the  matter  of  grievance  to  the  multitude 
of  the  disciples — directed  the  brethren  to  look  out  seven 
men — that  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude — 
that  they  chose,  etc.  The  democracy'^  of  the  whole 
arrangement  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  in  heaven. 

In  Acts,  xiv,  23,  there  is  mention  made  of  the  or- 
dination of  elders  in  every  church,  as  follows:  "And 
when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church, 
and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended  them 
to  the  Lord,  on  whom  they  beheved."  Tyndale's 
translation  is  decidedly  better — comes  much  nearer 
to  the  meaning  of  the  original.     With  the  orthog- 

*  I  use  the  terms  democracy,  democratic,  etc.,  in  their  literal 
sense,  without  any  reference  to  their  technical  application  to 
one  of  the  political  parties  of  our  great  nation. 
14 


152  THREE    REASONS, 

raphy  modernized  it  is  as  follows:  "And  when  they 
had  ordained  them  seniors  by  election,  in  every  con- 
gregation," etc.  The  word  in  the  original,  here 
translated  ordained  in  our  common  version,  literally 
means  "to  stretch  forth  the  hand,"  as  is  the  custom 
in  most  Baptist  churches  when  a  vote  is  taken.  Tyn- 
dale  well  puts  in  the  words,  "by  election,"  for  the 
churches  doubtless  elected  their  elders  by  the  popular 
vote.  He  also  states  in  his  "Rights  of  the  Church," 
as  quoted  by  Coleman  in  his  "Church  without  a 
Bishop,"  p.  63,  that  the  Greek  word  referred  to 
(cheirotones,  from  cheir,  the  hand,  and  teino,  to  extend 
01  stretch  forth)  is  interpreted  (as  he  interprets  it) 
by  Erasmus,  Beza,  Diodati,  and  those  who  translated 
the  Swiss,  French,  Italian,  Belgic,  and  even  English 
Bibles,  till  the  Ejjiscopal  correction,  which  leaves  out 
the  words  by  election,  as  well  as  the  marginal  notes, 
which  affirm  that  the  apostles  did  not  thrust  pastors 
into  the  church  through  a  lordly  superiority,  but  chose 
and  idaced  them  there  by  the  voice  of  the  congregation."' 

Every  one  can  readily  imagine  why  the  "Episcopal 
correction  "  was  made.  A  faithful  translation  would 
give  the  laity  an  influence  which  the  "Episcopal 
clergy"  are  of  course  unwilling  to  allow.  The  word 
cheirotones  is  used  but  twice  in  the  New  Testament — 
in  the  passage  under  consideration,  and  in  2  Cor.  viii, 
19.  In  the  latter  it  is  translated  "chosen" — that  is, 
"by  the  churches." 

The  word  in  Acts  xiv,  23,  certainly  means  that 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  163 

elders  were  chosen,  appointed,  not  without,  but  by 
means  of  the  suflFrages  of  the  churches.  Barnes  well 
remarks :  "  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas did  this.  But  probably  all  that  is  meant  by  it  is, 
that  they  presided  in  the  assembly  when  the  choice 
was  made.  It  does  not  mean  that  they  appointed 
them  without  consulting  the  church ;  but  it  evidently 
means  that  they  appointed  them  in  the  usual  way 
of  appointing  officers,  by  the  suffrages  of  the  people." 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  I  argue  that,  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  the  officers  of  a  church  are 
chosen  by  the  church.  No  one  church  has  the  right 
to  choose  officers  for  another.  No  combination  of 
churches  has  the  right.  Every  church  is  as  inde- 
pendent in  its  action  as  if  it  were  the  only  church  in 
the  world.  Every  church  is  an  executive  democracy, 
whose  business  it  is  to  carry  out  the  will  of  hei 
Divine  Head. 

In  support  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  Con- 
gregationalism, the  following  facts  are  stated  :  The 
"whole  church" — the  ** brethren" — are  named  in 
connection  with  the  "apostles  and  elders."  Acts,  xv, 
22,  23.  *'  Then  pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders, 
with  the  whole  church,  to  send  chosen  men,"  etc. 
"And  they  wrote  letters  by  them  after  this  manner: 
The  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,  send  greet- 
ing," etc.  The  laity  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
acted  as  well  as  the  apostles  and  elders. 

The  churches  of  apostolic  times  sent  forth  minis- 


164  THREE    REASONS, 

ters  on  missionary  tours.  When  Antioch  received 
the  word  of  God,  the  church  at  Jerusalem  "  sent 
forth  Barnabas,  that  he  should  go  as  far  as  Antioch," 
etc.  Acts,  xi,  22.  His  labors  were  successful — 
"much  people  was  added  to  the  Lord" — and  at  a 
subsequent  period  the  church  in  Antioch  sent  out 
Saul  and  Barnabas,  who  made  a  long  journey — per- 
formed much  labor — returned  and  reported  to  the 
church  **all  that  God  had  done  with  them."  Acts, 
xiii,  1-3;  xiv,  26,  27.  With  what  deferential  re- 
spect did  these  ministers  of  the  gospel  treat  the 
church  that  sent  them  forth !  The  apostles,  so  far 
from  exercising  lordship  over  the  churches,  did  not 
control  their  charities.  This  is  seen  in  Acts,  v,  4; 
xi,  29,  30;  1  Cor.  xvi,  1,  2;  2  Cor.  ix,  7.  The 
churches  selected  messengers  to  convey  their  chari- 
ties. See  1  Cor.  xvi,  3;  2  Cor.  viii,  18,  19;  Phil,  ii, 
25;  iv,  18. 

A  second  principle  of  Congregationalism,  to  which 
I  have  referred,  is  the  right  of  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  a  church  to  rule,  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
Christ.  In  2  Cor.  ii,  6,  it  is  written:  "Sufficient  to 
such  a  man  is  this  punishment,  which  was  inflicted  of 
many."  A  hteral  translation  of  the  words  rendered 
"of  many,"  would  be  "by  the  more" — that  is,  by 
the  majority.  McKnight's  rendering  is,  "by  the 
greater  number."  If,  as  has  been  shown,  the  gov- 
ernmental power  of  a  church  is  with  the  members,  it 
follows  that  a  majority  must  rule.     That  is  to  say, 


WHT    I    AM    A    BAPTIST.  165 

either  the  majority  or  minority  must  goverL.  But  it 
is  absurd  to  refer  to  the  rule  of  the  minority.  That 
a  majority  must  rule  is  so  plain  a  principle  of  Con- 
gregationalism, and  so  plain  a  principle  of  common 
sense,  that  it  is  needless  to  dwell  upon  it.' 

A  third  truth,  as  already  stated,  recognized  by  the 
Congregational  form  of  church  government  is,  that 
the  power  of  a  church  cannot  be  transferred  or  alien- 
aied,  and  thai  church  action  is  final. 

The  church  at  Corinth  could  not  transfer  her 
authority  to  the  church  at  Philippi,  nor  could  the 
church  at  Antioch.  convey  her  power  to  the  church 
of  Ephesus.  Neither  could  all  the  apostolic  churches 
delegate  their  power  to  an  association,  or  synod,  con- 
ference or  convention.  The  power  of  a  church  is 
manifestly  inalienable ;  and  if  this  be  true,  church 
action  is  final.  That  there  is  no  tribunal  higher 
than  the  church  is  evident  from  Matthew,  xviii,  15- 
17.  The  Savior  lays  down  a  rule  for  the  adjustment 
of  private  dififerences  among  brethren.  **If  thy 
brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,"  etc.  If  the 
oflfender,  when  told  of  his  fault,  does  not  give  sat- 
isfaction, the  ofifended  party  is  to  take  with  him  *'one 
or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses every  word  may  be  established."  But,  if  the 
oflfender  "  shall  neo-lect  to  hear  them,"  what  is  to  be 
done?  "Tell  it  to  the  church.''  What  church? 
The  aggregate  body  of  the  redeemed?  This  is 
absurd.     I  ask  again.  What  church  ?     Evidently  the 


166  THREE    REASONS, 

particular  congregation  to  wliich  the  parties  belong. 
If  the  offender  does  not  hear  the  church,  what  then? 
Let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a  pub- 
lican." But  can  there  not  be  an  appeal  to  an  asso- 
ciation, or  presbytery,  or  conference?  No.  There 
is  no  appeal.  Shall  an  association,  or  presbytery,  or 
conference,  put  the  offender  back  in  church  fellow- 
ship, when  the  church,  by  its  action,  classed  him 
with  heath«^,ns  and  publicans?  This  is  too  prepos- 
terous. What  kind  of  fellowship  would  it  be?  A 
church,  by  excluding  a  member,  declares  that  mem- 
ber unworthy  of  fellowship.  Will  it  be  asked,  what 
is  to  be  done  if  the  action  of  a  church  does  not  give 
satisfaction  to  all  concerned  ?  I  answer,  do  what  is 
done  when  the  action  of  a  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly,  or  Methodist  General  Conference,  or  an 
Episcopal  General  Convention,  does  not  give  satis- 
faction. There  must  be  a  stopping-place.  There 
must  be  final  action.  Baptists  say,  with  the  New 
Testament  before  them,  that  the  action  of  each 
local  congregation  of  believers  is  final.  Pedobaptists, 
with  the  exception  of  Independents  and  Congrega- 
tionalists,  deny  the  ^'finality'"  of  church  action.  Who 
are  right?  Let  those  who  oppose  the  Baptist  form 
of  church  government  show  anywhere  in  the  New 
Testament  the  remotest  allusion  to  an  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  a  church  to  any  other  tribunal.  It 
cannot  be  done.  There  were  no  tribunals  in  apos- 
tolic times  analogous  to  modern  presbyteries,  synods, 


WHY  I  AM  A  BAPTIST.  167 

general  assemblies,  conferences,  etc.  Let  those  who 
affirm  that  there  were  such  tribunals  adduce  the 
proof.  On  them  rests  the  burden  of  proof.  But 
to  furnish  this  proof  is  as  difficult  as  for  *'  a  camel 
to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle." 

Baptists  have  ever  regarded  every  church  as  com- 
plete in  itself,  independent,  so  far  as  its  government 
is  concerned,  of  every  other  church  under  heaven. 
They  have  watched  with  jealous  eye  all  encroach- 
ments on  church  sovereignty.  For  their  sentiments 
on  baptism — its  subjects  and  its  action — and  their 
views  of  church  government,  they  have  been  perse- 
cuted, tortured,  put  to  death.  Their  blood  has 
flowed  like  water.  From  their  ranks  have  been 
taken  myriads  of  martyrs,  who,  having  endured 
**much  tribulation,"  are  now  before  the  throne  of 
God.  But  the  principles  of  the  Baptists  still  live, 
and  will  live;  for  they  are  indestructible.  Fire, 
sword,  prisons,  racks,  gibbets!  what  say  you?  If 
these  principles  were  destructible,  would  ye  not  have 
destroyed  them  long  since,  and  have  blotted  out 
•'their  memorial"  from  under  heaven?  They  are 
divinely  vital  principles  :  they  will  not,  they  cannot 
die. 

The  view  which  I  have  presented  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  apostohc  churches  is  so  obviously  in 
accordance  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  that  distin- 
guished Pedobaptists  have  been  forced  to  concede  it. 
Hence,  the  learned  Mosheim,  a  Lutheran,  and  a  bitter 


168  THREE  REASONS, 

enemy  of  Baptists,  speaking  of  the  first  century, 
says :  *'  The  churches,  in  those  early  times,  were 
entirely  independent,  none  of  them  being  subject  to 
any  foreign  jurisdiction,  but  each  governed  by  its 
own  rulers  and  its  own  laws ;  for,  though  the  churches 
founded  by  the  apostles  had  this  particular  deference 
shown  to  them,  that  they  were  consulted  in  difficult 
and  doubtful  cases,  yet  they  had  no  juridical  author- 
ity, no  sort  of  supremacy  over  the  others,  nor  the 
least  right  to  enact  laws  for  them."* 

Archbishop  Whately,  a  dignitary  of  the  Church 
of  England,  referring  to  the  apostolic  churches,  says : 
**  They  were  each  a  distinct,  independent  community 
on  earth,  united  by  the  common  principles  on  which 
they  were  founded,  and  by  their  mutual  agreement, 
affection  and  respect;  but  not  having  any  one  recog- 
nized Head  on  earth,  or  acknowledging  any  sover- 
eignty of  one  of  these  societies  over  others."  Again: 
"A  CHURCH  and  a  diocese  seem  to  have  been  for 
a  considerable  time  co-extensive  and  identical.  And 
each  church  or  diocese,  (and  consequently  each 
superintendent,)  though  connected  with  the  rest  by 
ties  of  faith,  and  hope,  and  charity,  seems  to  have 
been  (as  has  been  already  observed)  perfectly  inde- 
pendent, as  far  as  regards  any  power  of  control."  f 

This  is  strong  testimony  from  a  Lutheran  and  an 

*Maclaine's  Mosheim,  Baltimore  Edition,  Vol.  I,  p.  3D. 
t  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Carter's  Edition,  pp.  36,  44. 


WHY   I   AM   A   BAPTIST.  169 

Episcopalian.  They  would  have  given  a  different 
representation  of  the  matter,  if  they  could  have  done 
so  consistently  with  truth.  They  virtually  condemned 
their  denominational  organizations  in  writing  what  I 
have  quoted.  I  might  refer  to  Neander,  Dr.  Bar- 
row, Dr.  Burton,  and  I  know  not  how  many  other 
Pedobaptists,  who  have  expressed  themselves,  in  sub- 
stance, as  Mosheim  and  Whately  have  done;  but  it  is 
needless.  I  am  not  dependent  on  the  testimony  of 
church  historians.  I  make  my  appeal  to  the  New 
Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.  If 
all  the  church  histories  in  the  world  said  that  the 
monarchical  or  aristocratic  form  of  church  govern- 
ment was  maintained  from  the  death  of  the  apostle 
John  onward,  I  would  not  be  moved  by  it,  as  long  as 
the  New  Testament  represents  every  church  as  a 
democracy  fully  competent  to  transact  its  own  busi- 
ness.    **  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony.'.' 

Americans  reject  with  scorn  the  idea  of  the  divine 
right  of  kings.  They  indorse  the  doctrines  of  that 
sublimest  of  uninspired  documents — the  "Declara- 
tion of  Independence."  They  say,  *'  all  men  are 
created  free  and  equal."  One  man  has  as  much 
right  to  be  King  or  President  as  another — that  is, 
no  one  has  the  right  till  the  people  confer  it.  The 
people  are  the  depositary  of  power.  Now,  if  all  men 
are  created  equal,  can  it  be  supposed  that  Jesus  Christ, 
in  giving  his  churches  a  form  of  government,  contra- 
vened the  great  principle  recognized  in  creation  ?     Is 


170  THREE    REASONS, 

this  supposition  reasonable?  Certainly  it  is  not. 
What  says  Christ,  (Matthew,  xxiii,  8;  Luke,  xxii, 
24,  25,  26,)  **Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi:  for  one  is 
your  Master,  even  Christ;  and  all  ye  are  brethren." 
*'And  there  was  also  a  strife  among  them,  which  of 
them  should  be  accounted  the  greatest.  And  he  said 
unto  them.  The  kings  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  lord- 
ship over  them;  and  they  that  exercise  authority 
upon  them  are  called  benefactors.  But  ye  shall 
not  be  so."  The  Redeemer  suppressed  all  the 
risings  of  ambition  in  the  minds  of  his  disciples — 
assuring  them  that  they  were  brethren — on  an  equal- 
ity— and  positively  forbidding  everything  hke  the 
exercise  of  lordship  and  authority.  Christianity  re- 
duces none  of  its  votaries  to  ciphers.  It  teaches 
them  all  that  they  are  immortal  creatures — person- 
ally responsible  to  God.  It  attaches  importance  and 
dignity  to  man;  for,  while  it  deeply  humbles  him 
before  God,  it  does  not  degrade  him  before  his  fel- 
low-man. Far,  very  far  from  it.  Those  know  little 
of  the  genius  of  Christianity  who  tamely  submit  to 
ministerial  domination,  whether  among  Papists  or 
Protestants.     But  enough. 

The  view  of  church  government  given  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages  I  sincerely  believe  accords  with  the 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament.  Baptists  maintain 
this  form  of  government.  Therefore  I  am  a  Bap- 
tist. I  might  give  other  reasons  for  being  a  Bap- 
tist, but  in  the  discourse  which  has  been  expanded 


WHY    r    AM    A    BAPTIST.  171 

iato  tins  treatise,  I  presented  only  the  three  on 
which  I  have  now  dwelt.  I  have  chosen  to  con- 
fine myself  to  the  points  discussed  in  that  discourse — 
namely,  the  subjects  and  the  action  of  Baptism,  and 
the  form  of  church  government.  Whatever  others 
may  think  of  my  Three  Reasons  for  being  a  Baptist, 
they  are,  to  my  mind,  amply  satisfactory ;  and  here 
I  lay  down  my  pen. 


T  HS     B  N  D 


